Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 23rd May, 1947, for the Whitsun Recess —met at Half-past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Dr. Richard Clitherow, the Member for the Borough of Liverpool (Edge Hill Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

HOVE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Personal Cases

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 14105099 Private R. J. Harrison, R.A.P.C., was recommended by the Command Interview Board of Western Command on 18th December, 1946, for transfer to the R.A.E.C.; that he subsequently attended the Holly Royde course for R.A.E.C. Instructors from 17th February to 14th March, 1947, and was graded as having outstanding ability as an instructor; that his Department have now refused to transfer this soldier to the R.A.E.C.; and whether he will state the reasons for this refusal.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): Yes, Sir. Owing to the pressure of work in Army Pay Offices due to demobilisation and the introduction of the new Pay Code it was decided that transfers from the Royal Army Pay Corps to the Royal Army Educational Corps would be suspended except in the case of applicants in possession of teaching qualifications. The position will be reviewed again in the next two or three months.

Mr. Bing: Does not my right hon. Friend think it a great waste of time to send this man on a course in order to be trained for something to which he is prohibited from being transferred?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I do not think it was a waste of time, although it might not have been appropriate to send him just then. I am hoping that it may be possible to utilise his services later on in the R.A.E.C.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War why 14173500 Private Key, R.A.S.C., who died of tuberculosis on 15th May, 1947, in a Middle East hospital, was refused an X-ray examination prior to his embarkation from this country on 28th April.

Mr. Bellenger: I have called for a report and will write to the hon. Member.

Soldiers' Treatment, Egypt (Inquiry)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Kirkdale will receive the report of the promised inquiry about the maltreatment of soldiers detained in a former prisonerof-war camp at Tahag, Egypt.

Mr. Bellenger: I have had exhaustive investigations made into this matter and have myself spent considerable time in going through the evidence. I am now in a position to make a statement. As it is necessarily very long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gallachcr: Will the Minister tell me when he is going to circulate the report of the inquiry into the treatment of prisoners at Tel el Kebir?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Following is the statement:

As I informed the House on 11th March, I ordered a Court of Inquiry to be held to investigate certain allegations made in the Press of improper treatment of those held in arrest as a result of the mutiny at Tel el Kebir between 8th and nth November, 1946. I have now received the proceedings of this Court of Inquiry which show that a most thorough examination of all the circumstances has been made. The sequence of events was as follows:
On the date in question, the garrison of Tel el Kebir contained mostly technical units and installations and comprised some 4,000 British troops and 15,000 others including Egyptians, West Africans and German prisoners of war. A further 11,000 Egyptians came in daily for work; thus 4,000 British troops were respnnsible for the supervision of some 26,000

Africans, Egyptians and Germans. Moreover Tel el Kebir is a very important installation. It is the "wholesale" depot for the support of the Land Forces in the whole of the Middle East and holds warlike stores, clothing and general stores worth many millions of pounds. It also includes large workshops with valuable machinery and tools which have to be looked after.
On 7th November, the new release programme was announced in the Press. On 8th, 9th and 10th November, a series of meetings were held to discuss this programme and were attended in all by some 2,000 men, or about half the British garrison.
On the mornings of Saturday, 9th November, and Monday, 11th November, a number of men either failed to return for duty or left their work to attend meetings. Officers who tried to attend these meetings were excluded or not allowed a hearing, though one commanding officer did manage to warn his men that what they were doing was mutinous.
Meanwhile, as a result of the mass meeting on the Saturday night, at which threats to seize arms were uttered, the officer commanding troops asked for reinforcements. Three battalions which arrived on the Monday morning in response to his request occupied key points such as armouries and the power house. If this had not been done an ugly incident might have occurred. This had a salutary effect; the men returned to the camps and by that afternoon all was normal, with depots and installations again working.
It was obviously not possible without completely disrupting the work of the garrison to arrest and charge with mutiny all the men who had banded themselves together and absented themselves from parade, nor indeed was it desirable to do so. It was, therefore, decided to arrest only those believed to have been the leaders. Between 11th and 20th November, 89 such men were arrested and these men were further questioned by the Investigating Officer, with the result that to N.C.Os. and men were finally brought to trial by Court-Martial. Four of these were acquitted, whilst proceedings in the case of the six who were convicted were not confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief, M.E.L.F. The remaining 79 were tried summarily by their commanding officer and in the majority of cases were found guilty.
The allegations which have been made have been gone into in great detail by the Court of Inquiry and after studying their Report I am satisfied that all, apart from two or three minor exceptions, are entirely unfounded. I will deal in some detail with what I regard as the two most important of these allegations, firstly, that confessions were extracted from the arrested men under duress and, secondly, that the accommodation in which they were held was unsatisfactory.
With regard to the first allegation, an Investigating Officer was appointed, and his sole duty was to discover by questioning those under arrest, who were and who were not the ringleaders. In each case, at the conclusion of the interrogation, the Investigating Officer said that if the soldier wished to make a statement he could do so to another officer,


but that there was no compulsion of any kind to make such a statement. He also stressed that any such statement would be made after caution, and that if any man wished for time to consider his position he was free to do so. Finally, I would say that no information which was given to the Investigating Officer during interrogation was used during the trial. The information was used solely to find out who were the real culprits, so that it might then be possible to find witnesses willing to give evidence against them. There is no doubt, and it is admitted by the Investigating Officer, that he ordered the arrest in error of one of the accused, but this soldier was acquitted by the court. Bearing in mind the extremely difficult task he had to perform, the methods he employed were in general unexceptional, and I am satisfied that this officer carried out his duty fairly.
As regards the allegations concerning accommodation, the substance of these is that the men were confined in the cells of an abandoned prisoner of war camp where conditions were crowded and dirty, and that this treatment was deliberate in order to induce the men to confess.
It was necessary for the local commander to make arrangements at short notice to segregate and hold in safe custody the 89 men who had been arrested. After making use of such cell accommodation at Tel el Kebir as was not already occupied and of 25 cells at Moascar, 30 miles away, the only remaining possibility was to use prisoner of war camps. Two of these camps were still occupied by Germans and, as it was obviously undesirable to confine British prisoners in camps occupied by Germans, it was decided to reopen the vacant prisoner of war camp. This camp, consisting of two compounds of 16 and 6 cells respectively and an enclosed area capable of holding up to 500 men, was reasonably close to Tel el Kebir and thus accessible to the regimental officers of the men concerned. Preparations were immediately made to carry out such small repairs as were necessary, to clean up the area and to move in the necessary stores such as tentage, palliasses, blankets, mosquito nets, etc. The 89 men were then disposed as far as resources permitted in the vacant cells at Tel el Kebir and Moascar, with the balance at the prisoner-of-war camp.
All the administrative arrangements made for the occupation of the prisoner-of-war camp were those normally made when a camp was occupied by British troops, including cooking, sanitary and lighting arrangements. During the time the camp was in occupation, the Officer in Charge of the guard and the guard itself lived in the camp under the same con ditions as the accused (except that.they had greater freedom) and although, as is indeed the case whenever a new camp is freshly occupied, there were minor difficulties and discomforts to be overcome, these were quickly put right. The mass of evidence compiled by the Court of Inquiry clearly shows that the conditions in this camp were no worse than in any other detention camp in the Middle East. The prisoners were frequently visited by their regimental officers and made no com-

plaints, and it is noteworthy that when they eventually left the camp, all but four of them expressed their gratitude to the Officer in Charge for the efforts he had made to improve the conditions under which they were detained. Any suggestion that these men were placed in appalling conditions in this camp in order to compel them to confess is fantastic in the extreme. There were cockroaches in some of the cells—there are liable to be cockroaches in any camp in the desert—but immediately these were reported action was taken to deal with them. There were mosquitos, as there are in most other camps in that area. For a short time the latrine did smell as may occasionally happen in all latrines in field service conditions, but this was quickly put right.
After reading the whole of the voluminous proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, I am in full agreement with the Commander-in-Chief, M.E.L.F., in emphatically repudiating the charges that harsh and unfair treatment was accorded to British soldiers in this case. The actions of the authorities on the spot in their prompt handling of this mutiny have my full support.

Personnel, Egypt (Clothing Issue)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool may expect the report of his promised inquiries regarding socks and underpants issued to certain Service personnel in Egypt.

Mr. Bellenger: One hundred and fifty pairs of socks from Army comforts were issued by the unit concerned as normal replacements owing to temporary shortage of Army pattern socks, the intention being that they should be replaced free by an additional issue when worn out. This was an isolated instance which occurred in quite exceptional circumstances. The pants complained of were of Indian manufacture and were issued in Italy to eke out stocks which were short owing to the closing of supply installations in connection with the withdrawal from Italy. All garments of this kind are to be exchanged.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a complaint with reference to this matter was made by one of the personnel of the regiment to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and that immediately on receipt of it the person who wrote to the right hon. Member for Woodford was severely remanded by his commanding officer? Will he have some inquiries made into it?

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot answer for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), but if the hon. Member will give me any information in connection with that matter I will certainly look into it.

Mrs. Braddock: I have already given it.

Despatches, Malay Peninsula and Singapore (Publication)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War when the despatches covering the loss of the Malay Peninsula and Singapore will be published.

Mr. Bellenger: It is expected that these despatches will reach their turn for publication some time in the autumn of this year.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say why this has taken so long? Is he aware that several battalions from my neighbourhood marched straight off their boat into captivity, and that their friends and relations want to know how this happened, and they cannot learn that until they see these despatches? Will he please hurry them up?

Mr. Bellenger: Strange to relate, I also want to know what happened and I am calling for this despatch myself. I am afraid it will not be possible to expedite it. There are many other dispatches which have to be published.

Extra-statutory Pensions

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for War what extra-statutory pensions are paid by his Department; the names of the recipients and the nature of the service in regard to which these pensions are paid; and whether it is intended to seek statutory authority for their continuance.

Mr. Bellenger: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the provision made in Vote 10P of Army Estimates 1947–48 for the grant of extra-statutory pensions to two former officers of the Polish Forces: The officers in question are General Anders and Admiral Swirski. The circumstances in which the awards have been made are explained in the note to the Estimate, and their continuance from year to year will be subject to approval of the provision in future Estimates. No other similar awards are in payment from Army funds;

should any be proposed, authority for the expenditure will be similarly sought in Army Estimates.

Mr. Bing: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making similar extra-statutory grants to British soldiers and to those who, for example, such as prisoners of war, are now not paid the rate for their rank?

Mr. Bellenger: I think my hon. Friend should bring any particular cases to my notice. I am only concerned to deal with the two officers who are the subject matter of this Question.

Brigadier Peto: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why an Admiral is paid out of Army funds?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I cannot without notice.

Territorial Army

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for War, what is the reason for refusing to allocate a seat on the Army Council to the Director-General of the T.A.

Mr. Bellenger: Executive action on Territorial Army matters is now the responsibility of the military members of the Army Council dealing with the same subjects for the Regular Army.

Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware of the feeling on the part of Territorial Associations that they might have the same status as they had before the war?

Mr. Bellenger: Actually, because of the changed rôle of the Territorial Army, I think it is more appropriate that these matters should now be dealt with by the military members of the Army Council who are now responsible for the T.A.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will ensure that adequate up-to-date equipment and vehicles are immediately available for the formation and training of units of the T.A.; and whether special provision is being made for units covering widely dispersed' areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): Action has been taken to ensure that up-to-date equipment and vehicles are available to the Territorial Army. As the requirement of every unit will vary, depending on recruiting and the accommodation available, it has


been left to units to ask for what they want against scales laid down by the War Office. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Territorial units are very short of canteen equipment and elementary furniture for their offices?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir. I am very well aware of that.

Stored Vehicles (Conditions)

Brigadier Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to maintain in good condition 100,000 fighting vehicles which are now in dumps in this country or in Germany.

Mr. J. Freeman: As far as circumstances permit, serviceable vehicles are maintained in a state of care and preservation and vehicles due to be reconditioned receive maintenance to prevent further deterioration.

Brigadier Low: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there are, in fact, 100,000 fighting vehicles in dumps, and what object he has in mind in keeping all these vehicles in good condition?

Mr. Freeman: No, Sir, I am not prepared to give the figure, but some vehicles are being kept by the Army for subsequent use; others are in Ministry of Supply dumps for disposal.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say when such of these vehicles as are suitable for the purpose of adaptation to farming use will be made available to the agricultural purchaser?

Mr. Freeman: I should want notice of that question.

Personnel, Palestine (Postal Facilities)

Major Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider restoring the concessions in respect of free postage and an issue of duty-free cigarettes to British Forces in Palestine while they are serving under Active Service conditions.

Mr. Richard Law: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, under a new regulation, officers and men serving in Palestine now have to pay postage on letters sent by air mail; and if, in

view of the high cost of living and the hardships already being endured, he will reconsider the decision and allow free air mail postage as hitherto.

Mr. J. Freeman: The wartime concession by which troops serving in operational theatres abroad enjoyed free postage of letters by air or surface mail has been modified only to the extent that they are now required to pay 1½d. for letters up to one ounce sent by air. My right hon. Friend does not consider, however, that this should result in financial hardship. As regards the issue of cigarettes in Palestine, there has been no change: the free issue of 50 cigarettes a week is continuing.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the postage which is now being required is a source of great irritation to troops in Palestine, and is it worth it for a mere penny halfpenny per letter? Will he not "go the whole hog" and discontinue the postal charge?

Mr. Freeman: I do not think it is unreasonable. Surface mail is still free, and a penny halfpenny an ounce for air mail is not unreasonable.

Major Mott-Radelyffe: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that troops are now operating in Palestine under conditions that are far worse than in a great many areas during the war?

Mr. Freeman: That is the reason why we have preserved their free issue of cigarettes for them.

Stanford Battle Training Area

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War why it is considered necessary permanently to retain and extend the Stanford battle area, and if it would be possible to reduce the 28,000 acres involved so as to exclude all cultivated agricultural land.

Mr. Bellenger: The position remains as stated in reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 22nd April. No decision has yet been taken by His Majesty's Government regarding the future of this area.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Could the Minister say why it is necessary to retain any of this area at all, as the numbers in the Eastern area are now so greatly reduced from what they were in the war?

Mr. Bellenger: This is all part of a much larger problem, and the time is not very far distant now when His Majesty's Government will be making their considered views known to the House.

Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that Norfolk has already lost a great deal of good agricultural land through the claims of the Royal Air Force, and would he not give most careful consideration to moving this away from the county altogether?

Mr. Bellenger: I would only wish that I could meet the views of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the country who want precisely the same thing, but if we are to have an Army, we must have somewhere to train it. I would ask the House to await the statement, which may not be very far distant now, when His Majesty's Government will state the case quite clearly for all hon. Members to consider.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not a definite pledge given, so far as this particular area was concerned, that it would be returned at the end of the war; and was not that pledge given by G.O.C., Eastern Command, on behalf of the War Office?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that I can go into that now; as I say, it is all part of a-much larger problem.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Would the Secretary of State for War say when the decision can be given, so that local authorities and local activities can know what plans they can make?

Mr. Bellenger: Very soon, I hope.

Sir William Darling: Will the right hon. Gentlemen in coming to their decision, have in mind that in England the population is 714 to the square mile, whereas in Scotland it is 165 to the square mile?

Transit Camp, Hiltingbury (Use)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that transit camp No. 73 at Hiltingbury, Chandler's Ford, Hampshire, is not in continuous use and is mainly occupied by a maintenance staff; and whether he will arrange for this camp, or a portion of it, to be made available for local civilian housing needs.

Mr. J. Freeman: The numbers accommodated in this transit camp necessarily

fluctuate. I regret that I cannot at present accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will bear it in mind.

Bureau of Current Affairs

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost to the Army of the services of the Bureau of Current Affairs; whether any lecturers of this organisation are employed by his Department, and whether these are members of the Army Education Corps; also, whether there is any obligation on units to avail themselves of the services of this organisation or to display its posters in barracks, camps. or other military establishments.

Mr. Bellenger: The estimated expenditure in 1947–48 for the purchase of the fortnightly issues of "Map Review" and "Current Affairs" of the Army is 118,000. This is borne on His Majesty's Stationery Office votes, not by Army funds. Lecturers of the Bureau of Current Affairs may be used where necessary to assist the Army in the same way and on the same terms as have been approved for other civilian lecturers employed under the Army Education Scheme; none of these lecturers belongs to the Royal Army Educational Corps and there is no obligation on formations and units to employ them. The publications, "Current Affairs" and "Map Review" are purchased by the War Office and issued for use in discussions on current affairs in the same way as similar publications previously issued by the War Office. Commanding Officers are instructed to ensure that the material provided is communicated to and discussed by all ranks.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already more than enough during their service for soldiers to learn without the addition of some political matter put over by this Bureau? Is he aware that I hold in my hand an Army Council Instruction saying that C.Os. will ensure that the material thus provided is communicated to and discussed by all ranks in training or working hours, and that a minimum of one hour a week will be included in the programmes of all units (including A.T.S. and V.A.D. units) for this purpose? Is not that an obligation on C.Os.?

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct; that Army


Council Instruction was issued with the approval of the Army Council, and I find no fault with it.

Mr. Driberg: How much of this money was wasted when my right hon. Friend's Department banned the circulation of the Bureau's excellent and objective pamphlet on "The Control of the Press"?

Mr. Bellenger: That is a very stale thing now.

Major Tufton Beamish: Is not this Bureau.of Current Affairs an agency of Socialist propaganda, in the same way as A.B.C.A. was during the war?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: How are these lecturers selected by the Department?

Mr. Bellenger: I could give the answer, but it would mean going into a great deal of detail.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly in his original answer that there was no obligation on commanding officers to avail themselves of this organisation. In view of the Army Instruction, which I quoted, will he explain that discrepancy?

Mr. Bellenger: What I said was that there was no obligation on the commanding officers of units or formations to employ civilian lecturers under this scheme. The obligation, of course, is to carry out the Army Council Instruction.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it the case that attendance at these lectures is compulsory? Could they not be placed on the same basis as attendance at church?

Mr. Bellenger: Attendance is compulsory in the one hour a week. I think it does the mer much good. and they appreciate it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is it not a fact that any organisation which exists for the dissemination of truth must inevitably disseminate a certain amount of Socialist propaganda?

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the Bureau of Current Affairs poster No. 26, of 26th April, which, under the authority of an Army Council Instruction, was displayed in barracks; whether this poster had his approval; and whether

he will cause a copy of every Bureau of Current Affairs poster which is displayed in barracks, camps, or other military establishments to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that the poster in question has given rise to some criticism. It has not hitherto been the practice to submit these posters to my Department for approval before issue as they are mainly factual and depend for their value on topicality, which might be lost by any delay. Without expressing any opinion on the particular case, I agree that any poster which contains matter of a controversial nature should be submitted, the same way as the Current Affairs pamphlets, before it is distributed to the Army, and I have asked for this to be done in future. A copy of each issue is already supplied to the Library of the House.

Sir G. Jeffreys: In view of that reply, am I correct in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a definite check by Army authorities on all literature issued by this organisation in future?

Mr. Bellenger: That is really the purport of my answer.

Major Beamish: Is not the Bureau of Current Affairs an agency of Socialist propaganda, in the same way as A.B.C.A. was during the war?

Mr. Bellenger: I disagree entirely with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. A.B.C.A. did very good service during the war, as is admitted by all who served in the Army.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: The right hon. Gentleman said that any poster of a controversial nature should be submitted to his Department; surely, he means that it should not be exhibited without that submission?

Mr. Bellenger: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will trust my judgment.

Dance Incident, Newbury

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has called for reports from the military police on the fighting between paratroopers and Polish soldiers at a dance in the Corn Exchange, Newbury, on 16th May; if he has considered grievances put forward by the paratroopers: and what action he has taken to prevent a recurrence of such behaviour.

Mr. J. Freeman: This incident is being investigated with a view to taking disciplinary action against those responsible for the disturbance. The airborne troops have now left the area, and steps have been taken to provide military police patrols in Newbury.

Mr. Hurd: I am most grateful for that assurance, but I would like to know whether these Polish soldiers are doing any useful work in the day time. May I have an answer?

Mr. Freeman: That is a different question.

Parades, Singapore

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War why the reforms in Army discipline, including a reduction in the number of parades, announced by Field-Marshal Montgomery, have not yet been introduced into 65 Con. Troop, 3rd Squadron, 19 A.F.S. Regiment, stationed at Singapore; and if he will take steps to see that they are.

Mr. J. Freeman: I have every reason to believe that Army Council policy regarding parades is being fully implemented by units in South-East Asia. If, however, the hon. Member will let me know what unnecessary parades he considers are being held in the unit referred to, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Lipson: If I send a letter I have received from a member of the unit, will the hon. Gentleman say that this soldier will not be subject to disciplinary action?

Mr. Freeman: Most certainly.

Brigadier Low: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what these abbreviations mean?

Mr. Freeman: I had to inquire about them myself. They mean the 65th Construction Troop, 3rd Squadron, 19th Air Formation Signals Regiment.

Officers' Uniforms (Superseded Items)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War if officers of the Army, in accordance with long-established custom, are still permitted to wear out superseded items of uniform in their possession.

Mr. J. Freeman: Yes, Sir, generally speaking officers are still permitted to

wear out superseded items of uniform except for prewar full dress and mess dress.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this long-standing custom in the Army has been washed out in the case of mess kit?

Mr. Freeman: Because my right hon. Friend and the Army Council decided that it was a wise move.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Yes, but what does the right hon. Gentleman know about it?

A.T.S. (Releases)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War what effect the reduction of the period of conscription from 18 months to 12 months will have on the release of the A.T.S.; and which trades are affected and to what extent.

Mr. J. Freeman: None, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (MARRIAGES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that reasonable social intercourse between British civilians and German prisoners of war is now permitted he will state his attitude to the marriage of British women and German prisoners.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this matter requires careful consideration and at the moment I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 15th May to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton).

Mr. Driberg: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulties, might I ask him what action he has taken in relation to the particular case of the marriage which occurred recently?

Mr. Bellenger: I believe that the matter is sub judice at the present moment, and therefore it would be improper for me now to give a reply.

Mr. Driberg: With respect, is it not only a particular point that is sub judice, that is to say, the alleged false entries in the register? What is my right hon. Friend's attitude to the general question of the marriage?

Mr. Bellenger: As to that particular marriage I cannot say any more than I have said in answer to the general question, namely, that the whole principle is under consideration.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Arising out of the original reply, is it not unreasonable to allow this social intercourse and rule out the probable consequences of it? Would it not be reasonable to allow both?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know that I would agree that all those associations end in wedlock.

Mr. Stokes: Is not my right hon. Friend the last person in the world to obstruct the course of nature in this matter? Does he not realise that he cannot resist the inevitable course of nature?

Mr. Bellenger: I have never attempted to resist the inevitable course of nature.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: If there are difficulties about British women marrying German prisoners in this country, will he try to make facilities for British women to go out to Germany to marry returned prisoners of war? I have the case of a constituent who wishes to do this now. May I have an answer?

Mr. Bellenger: I think that is an entirely different point from the one raised in the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Unemployment Benefit

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will arrange to pay the new rates of unemployment benefit immediately.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): As I have already stated in reply to previous similar Questions, provision has already been made by regulations for extended benefit on the lines of flection 62 of the National Insurance Act and for the repayment of waiting days under Section II of that Act. I do not contemplate that any further provision of the Act relating to unemployment can be introduced in advance of the main insurance scheme especially where, as in this proposal, an increase of contributions would be involved.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that where there are pockets of unem-

ployment the fact that 24s. a week is being paid to a single man and 40s. a week to a man and wife, who are ablebodied, causes consternation about the fact that these sums have not been increased since the advent of the present Government?

Approved Society Staffs (Transfer)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of National Insurance when he expects to be able to announce the terms of transfer of staffs of approved societies to his Department.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have now had an opportunity of considering the recommendations made by the Committee I appointed to advise me on this matter and I have arranged to place copies of the Report in the Library, together with a statement of the action I have decided to take. Printed copies will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this answer will be received with appreciation by many thousands of people interested in this matter? Will he see that sufficient copies are available for genera] needs?

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise 100 per cent. of the staff, or, if not, what per cent.?

Mr. Griffiths: The Report is very long and an important one, and the statement will be placed in the Library. We hope to take over practically all the persons concerned.

Mr. Hughes: May I have an answer to my question?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these people at present resident in Scotland are not removed to England, as happened in the case of the Insurance Ministry at Newcastle?

Mr. Griffiths: That is one of the matters referred to in the Report. In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), I will make as many copies available as possible, and very soon we hope to have further copies available.

Sir W. Darling: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this concession will be something of a solatium to the


approved societies, who are suffering from the broken pledge of the General Election?

Mr. Griffiths: Representatives of the approved societies, both of employers and workers, have sat on the Committee, and I am grateful to them for their co-operation

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Manpower

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour when ascertaining the manpower necessary for 1947, as noted in section 15 of Cmd. 7046, what standard of output was taken and for what year.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): As pointed out in Paragraph 61 of Cmd. 7046, the central fact of 1947 is that we have not enough resources to do all that we want to do. The Economic Survey for 1947 does not purport to estimate the manpower that would be needed to meet all requirements; it only suggests the desirable distribution of the manpower likely to be available at the end of the year.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister realise that owing to the fuel crisis and to the demand for shorter hours and higher wages, and to the decreasing output per man-hour, Cmd. 7046 is of no value at all now? Will the Government say so, and scrap it?

Mr. Isaacs: The Government will not say so because we find that the information given in that document is still of great value to industry.

Displaced Persons

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Labour how many displaced persons have now entered this country to work here; what are the numbers from each country; and what industries they have entered or are entering.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Approximately 10,000 European volunteer workers have been brought over from the displaced persons camps in the British zone of Germany. They 'consist almost entirely of Balts and Ukrainians, but the precise numbers of each nationality are not readily available. They are being

placed in the essential undermanned industries such as agriculture, textiles and laundries as well as in nursing and domestic work in hospitals and farmers' households.

Mr. Beswick: Have people placed in an industry to give an undertaking to remain in that particular industry, and what is the period for which they have to remain in that industry?

Mr. Ness Edwards: They have been asked to stay in an industry for 12 months. They can move about in the industry with the consent of the Ministry of Labour, but they are expected to remain in the undermanned industries for 12 months.

Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman said that precise numbers are not readily available. Does he mean that there is no check being kept on the nationality of displaced persons?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That check is being kept in Germany, and it would mean getting the information from there. If a Question is put down information can be supplied.

Mr. Paget: How long, on the average, is it taking to place these people into industry after their arrival?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The placing of the Balts and Ukrainians is proceeding satisfactorily. Indeed we are afraid that it may prejudice some of the other foreign workers who are already here.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Can the Minister say whether these displaced persons are the same as the European volunteer workers?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Labour whether applicants from among displaced persons who wished to work in this country are screened before being admitted; who is responsible; and the percentage that have been refused entry following screening.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Selection of displaced persons for employment in this country is made by my officers on the basis of industrial suitability. No displaced person, however, comes within the field of recruitment for employment in this country who has not previously been


screened as a condition of receiving displaced person's status. This screening is undertaken by U.N.R.R.A. and the Control Commission jointly and is designed to exclude from displaced person's status collaborators, quislings and war criminals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs regrets that figures are not readily available of the numbers of persons rejected by these bodies for displaced person's status.

Cost-of-Living Index (Laundry Charges)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the recent sanction of increased laundry prices of 1½d. in the shilling, due regard will be paid to this in arriving at the new cost-of-living index figure which is now under consideration.

Mr. Isaacs: It is proposed to include laundry charges as one of the items to be covered by the new index, which will be introduced at an early date.

Mr. De la Bère: While I thank the Minister for that reply—and I do not often do that—may I ask him if he does not agree that it is a fact that there is a great shortage of soap for home washing and that the high cost of washing outside makes it very difficult for the housewife? Can he give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Isaacs: The supply of soap does not come under my Department. I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues. The point is that this rapid increase in the cost of laundry should, of necessity, be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (PRISONER-OF-WAR LABOUR)

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the refusal by his Department to allow German prisoners temporarily unemployed on agricultural work to be employed in private gardens on vegetable production and, in view of the importance of food production and the desirability of keeping such prisoners in employment, if he will authorise such permission to be be granted in appropriate cases.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have been asked to reply. At any time when "agricultural" prisoners are not all wanted for agricultural work, my Department is prepared to arrange, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, for them to be employed on other urgent work of national importance, but the type of employment to which the hon. Member refers is not one in which, in my view, the use of prisoner labour can be justified.

Sir W. Smithers: Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture about a case I sent to him recently as to why someone with a large garden, who wants to produce all the food he can, cannot get labour? If German prisoner-of-war labour is available, why will the right hon Gentleman not grant the concession?

Mr. Williams: Because all the German prisoners available for agriculture can find full work.

Sir W. Smithers: No, they cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS

Mr. Spence: asked the Prime Minister if he will now say what has been the result of the review of the numbers employed in national and local government, indicated in Cmd. 7046, Paragraph 120 (vi.); and whether the assumed reduction is taking place.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As regards national Government staffs, I shall be making a statement in the very near future. As to local government staffs, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have arranged for circulars to go to all local authorities, drawing attention to this passage of Cmd. 7046 and inviting them to effect the maximum economies (consistent with the discharge of duties resulting from Government policy); it is too early yet to say what reductions will result.

Mr. Spence: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the 13,000 snoopers which his Ministry is employing are really necessary?

The Prime Minister: My Ministry has no snoopers.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the Prime Minister able to say that he is confident that he will get results from the local authorities, unless the central Government set an example first of all?

The Prime Minister: I think that both will do their best.

Major Bruce: Would it not be a good thing for private industry also to set a good example in these manpower economies in the administrative grades?

The Prime Minister: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS (NEXT OF KIN)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider issuing medals to the next of kin of those who were killed or died of wounds on Active Service between 1939 and 1945.

The Prime Minister: The campaign stars and the medals earned by those who were killed or died of wounds incurred on Active Service during the war will be sent in due course to whoever is named in the will of the deceased as the person who should receive them. If there is no will including this provision, they will be sent to the next of kin.

Mr. Renton: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that when the issue of medals begins those for the next of kin will not be postponed for the medals of those who are living, because they feel this matter very much?

The Prime Minister: I will look into that but I do not see why they should.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does that reply cover decorations granted in addition to campaign medals?

The Prime Minister: I will look into that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (FUTURE STATUS)

Sir Alan Herbert: asked the Prime Minister whether the possibility of including Newfoundland in the United Kingdom under similar arrangements to those concerning Northern Ireland has been considered by His Majesty's Government or suggested to the National Convention now deliberating in Newfoundland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I said in my statement in this House on 11th December, 1945, the National Convention was elected with the object of considering the changes which have taken place since 1934 in the financial and economic situation of Newfoundland, and in the light of these to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future Government to be put before the people at a national referendum. It rests with the National Convention to make such recommendations as they think suitable and it would not be appropriate for the United Kingdom Government to make suggestions as to the form which these recommendations should take or to express an opinion as to possible solutions.

Sir A. Herbert: In the case of this particular form of Government would it not be impossible for Newfoundland to ask for it to be done without some indication from His Majesty's Government that it would be welcome and practicable? May I ask the Prime Minister to answer the first part of the Question as to whether the Government have in fact considered that solution?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing to prevent anyone from asking for anything. The suggestion is that they should put forward proposals, but that does not mean that we should say that we should accept them. In regard to the hon. Member's first point, I have looked into this particular matter and examined it.

Sir A. Herbert: May I take it that the Government have not definitely made up their mind against it?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will read my reply, he will see that I said that I think it unsuitable for His Majesty's Government to express an opinion at this juncture.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Redundant Post Office Grades

Captain Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why established civil servants in redundant grades in the Post Office are not given the same facilities as new recruits from outside the Civil Service to sit for open examinations in order to qualify for promotion to clerical posts.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): All established civil servants who were within the normal age limits for the clerical class competition during the period of the war, and as a result of the war lost opportunities of competing, are eligible to compete in the Open Reconstruction Competition for the clerical class on precisely the same terms as candidates from outside the service. In addition, members of the minor and manipulative grades of the Post Office can compete in the limited competition, which is open to established civil servants only.

Captain Crowder: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some priority should be given to established servants compared with those coming from outside?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally, provided that they are within the age limits, they have exactly the same chance as someone coming in from outside. In addition, they have this limited competition open to them.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep feeling among members of the redundant grades in the Post Office that as a result of reorganisation of the services something more should be done in the direction indicated in this Question, and will he examine the matter further with a view to seeing what are the possibilities?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Certainly. We are always ready to look into these things. I should make it clear that, although these people have become redundant, there is no suggestion that they are to be discharged. They are established.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In considering the case of these redundant men, will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the other half-dozen categories of people who are entitled to consideration, and be extremely careful about what he does?

Resignations (Gratuities)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware of the hardship caused by the fact that civil servants who resign their posts after a number of years' service for reasons other than marriage, in the case of women, are not entitled to any gratuity; and if he will now amend the present regulations so as to permit gratuities to be paid on resignation in suitable cases.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. For reasons which I have already explained to the hon. Member, the existing practice must continue.

Mr. Bower: Is it not a fact that Civil Service salaries are based to some extent on the expectation of a gratuity or pension at the end of service and, if that is so, is it not unfair that civil servants should receive nothing at all after serving for many years?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If they serve the requisite number of years, they get a pension. We have to lay down regulations and they are well known to people when they go into the Civil Service. If this suggestion were acceded to, it would need legislation to put it into effect.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that the present practice under which a man who resigns forfeits all claim to pension in respect of the years he has put in has the effect of keeping a lot of square pegs in round holes, and also that it makes it practically impossible for the head of a Department to dismiss anybody, however much he ought to be dismissed? Is not this a matter that ought to be reconsidered?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is hardly a matter that can be considered by way of question and answer in this way.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCISE OFFICE, DENBIGH (CLOSING)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to a large rural population centred around Denbigh and Ruthin through the closing of the excise office at Denbigh; and what arrangements his Department Is making to deal with the requirements of this area, particularly in regard to entertainment tax matters.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret any local inconvenience that may arise from the closing of the excise office at Denbigh, but, with the loss of work due to the transfer of the administration of non-contributory old age pensions from the Customs and Excise to the Assistance Board, the areas covered by some excise officers must be enlarged, and it is unavoidable that there should be fewer local excise offices, if there is to be economical use of manpower. The small amount of excise work in the Denbigh area, including all work in connection with the Entertainments Duty, will be covered by the excise officer stationed at Rhyl, which has been selected as the most convenient centre for the economical performance of all the work in this area.

Sir H, Morris-Jones: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of this rural area is largely Welsh speaking; that it is a deprivation to them to take away an office with a Welsh-speaking official who dealt with their needs; and further that the people of Ruthin object to going to.0swestry, 40 miles away in England, to transact Entertainment Duty matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have looked into this matter. The trouble is that if we did what is suggested, the office would only have about one and a half hours' work a week. We think it is unfair that we should keep an office open with a man there to do nothing else but carry out work which would occupy him, perhaps at the most, for two and a half hours a week. On the question of the language difficulty, most of the old people who received old age pensions could only speak Welsh and it was then essential that we should have someone who was able to speak Welsh. Those circumstances do not apply now because someone else has taken over.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Exports (Volume Percentage)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the volume percentage of exports

monthly, compared with 1938, instead of three monthly as at present.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): This is already done in the monthly trade article in the "Board of Trade Journal."

Paper Making (Home Produced Straw)

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy to encourage the use of home produced straw for paper making; and to what extent there has been a reduction in the use of straw for this purpose consequent on increased imports of esparto grass.

Sir S. Cripps: The choice between straw and esparto within the supplies available is left largely to the paper makers, and straw consumption has fallen since 1945 by about 50 per cent. The use of esparto rather than straw involves a considerably smaller consumption of coal per ton of paper produced.

Mr. Hurd: Does esparto grass involve the use of hard currency?

Sir S. Cripps: No.

Crombie Cloth (Military Tailors)

Brigadier Peto: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that military tailors have been without supplies of Crombie cloth to make up into British Warms for over six months and whether any supplies are likely to be released in the near future.

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the term "Crombie" cloth describes the product of a particular firm, but a number of other manufacturers make cloth for the same purpose. I have no information to suggest that supplies of such materials generally are not available.

Brigadier Peto: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that military tailors have had orders on their books for a considerable period of time and that they would take more than six months to fulfil completely the orders not only for this particular type of Crombie cloth, but also for Bedford cloth and other types which are required?

Sir S. Cripps: I am quite aware that there is a shortage) of textiles in this country.

Norfolk Broads (Boat Equipment)

Mr. Medlicott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that boat owners on the Norfolk Broads who let craft to holiday makers are experiencing difficulty in furnishing the full number of boats required for the holiday season; and if he will make available the necessary supplies of furnishings and equipment, information as to which has been sent to him, so that the maximum number of people desirous of spending their holidays on the Broads this year may be accommodated.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member will by now have received from my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade a letter which gives details of the help which it is possible to give the Norfolk Broads boat owners in respect of furnishings and equipment.

Mr. Medlicott: Can the Minister give me an assurance that the special help which he has been good enough to arrange through his regional office at Cambridge will not be subject to a time limit in view of the number of people left out of the original arrangements?

Sir S. Cripps: We shall certainly do all we can to help.

Mr. Driberg: If this letter contains news of a new concession to small boat-builders, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider publishing it in HANSARD, as there are a number of other places interested, besides the Norfolk Broads?

Sir S. Cripps: I will consider it.

Textile Machinery Exports

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware of the difficulties of British manufacturers of textiles in supplying orders from South America in competition with Italian and other continental firms; and if it is still his policy to allow the export to the Continent of modern textile machinery needed in this country.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that British exporters of textiles have difficulty in meeting all the orders offered to them from South America and other markets because of shortage of production, but I am not aware that they are experiencing difficulty in disposing of available cloth

because of Italian and other Continental competition. With reference to the second part of the Question, the output of textile machinery will continue to be divided between home and export markets with full regard for the importance of home requirements.

Clothing Coupons (Old Issues, Invalidation)

Mr. Paget: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if, in order to ease the work of shopkeepers, he will cancel some of the older clothing coupons.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I recognise that while the number of old clothing coupons outstanding is not likely to be considerable, their variety is increasing the task of shopkeepers with each succeeding issue. I propose accordingly to invalidate from 1st November, 1947, all coupons in the ordinary clothing books for the year 1945/46 and earlier, and certain supplementary and Service coupons of types which have not been issued recently. Valid coupons in the 1946/47 clothing books and the current types of coupon vouchers, Service and Merchant Navy coupons and supplementary coupons will remain valid until further notice. Full details will be published in the Press during the summer

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider replacing some of the older coupons with new coupons, because there are a number of young people who are saving up their coupons in order to buy furnishing equipment when they get married?

Sir S. Cripps: This matter concerns clothing coupons. One cannot buy furniture—

Mr. Taylor: I said "furnishing equipment"—curtains and sheets, etc.

Sir S. Cripps: That is why we are not withdrawing them until 1st November. so as to give people time.

Major Cecil Poole: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what people have been wearing who still have clothing coupons for 1945?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister assure the House that when this influx of coupons comes on the market there will be adequate supplies to meet them?

Sir S. Cripps: Provided that the output of textiles remains at least as good as it is today, we calculate that there will be sufficient.

Hong Kong Garrison (Claims)

Mr. Paget: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the claims of members of the Hong Kong garrison, in respect to possessions lost upon the Japanese invasion, are likely to be settled.

Sir S. Cripps: I am consulting my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this matter, and a communication will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware of the abnormal delay there has been in settling claims both under war risk insurance and other categories, and that they have recently been put back another three months? Will he see that these claims are heard very promptly and settled equally promptly?

Sir S. Cripps: As I said in my answer, I am communicating with my right hon. Friends.

Stump Socks

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of clean stump socks to disabled ex-Servicemen and as any failure to ensure strict cleanliness results in sores and ill-health, he will give an assurance that an adequate supply of these stump socks will be made available to all the limb-fitting centres of the hospitals throughout the country.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Special steps have already been taken to increase the production of stump socks, and limited quantities are also being imported. Although a shortage of skilled labour is the main difficulty, I have every hope that we shall be able to meet current demands and make early inroad into the present arrears.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that we owe such an enormous debt of gratitude to these disabled ex-Servicemen, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care to ensure that in future every possible relief is given to these 'men to see that at no time are they really short of the necessities?

Sir S. Cripps: I agree that we should give special consideration to these men.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Children (Defective Speech)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what pro, vision is made by Scottish education authorities for teaching children whose speech is defective and curing their defects; how many, and in what Scottish schools, speech therapists are employed; what are their qualifications; and what is their record of success or failure.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): In the course of their training, all certificated teachers receive instruction in the treatment of speech defects. Special provision for remedial treatment is made by 10 of the larger authorities, whose names I am arranging to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These authorities employ 27 speech therapists and the services of some of these specialists, all of whom are licentiates of the College of Speech Therapy or holders of other recognised qualifications, are used also by neighbouring authorities. In general, results of treatment are satisfactory.

Housing Contributions

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to announce the result of his review of the contributions provided for in Section 14 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946.

Mr. Westwood: I am discussing this matter with the Scottish local authority associations on Friday of this week, and hope to make a statement to the House shortly thereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Station, Kinloss (Overtime)

Mr. Marples: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what rates of overtime are reimbursed to the contractor who is building married quarters for the R.A.F. at Kinloss, Moray; what is the average number of hours' overtime each operative works per week; and what is the estimated additional cost by adopting overtime rates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I have been asked to reply. Overtime has not been ordered by my Department on the contract for building these married quarters, and, therefore, no overtime rates are paid to the contractor. I understand, however, that overtime is being worked, up to a maximum of ro hours a week, but this is the contractor's own arrangement and my Department is not involved in any additional cost.

Mr. Marples: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that contractors who build for the R.A.F., and pay these increased rates of pay by way of overtime, are inducing labour away from local authorities who are building houses for the civilian population?

Mr. de Freitas: the contractor is stopping the practice. The matter has just been brought to our attention.

W.A.A.F. (Releases)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Air what effect the reduction of the period of conscription from r8 months to 12 months will have on the release of the W.A.A.F.; and which trades are affected and to what extent.

Mr. de Freitas: None at all.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of women who had their release retarded recently have been given the reason that it is because of the reduction in the period of conscription, and will he give the matter his attention?

Mr. de Freitas: I am certainly not aware of that. We are not delaying release, and we are up to Group 59 already. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that there is no truth in the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON TEXTILE MACHINERY (EVERSHED REPORT)

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice

Evershed to undertake investigations into the cotton textile machinery industry.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): The Report of the Committee on the Spinning Section of the Industry was published on 30th May. I welcome this opportunity of paying tribute to the Committee for their helpful and constructive Report, and to Textile Machinery Makers, Limited, for the spirit in which they have responded to the suggestions made by the Committee during the course of their inquiry. The recommendations of the Report, some of which are already in course of being implemented, provide a promising and workable basis for further action by my Department and the Company to bring this important industry to a high level of efficiency.

Mr. Rhodes: Are the Committee now pursuing these investigations?

Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir. They are going on with the next section of their work.

Oral Answers to Questions — W.R.N.S. (RELEASES)

Major Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what effect the reduction of the period of conscription from 18 months to 12 months will have on the release of the W.R.N.S.; and which trades are affected and to what extent.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "None, Sir." The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: It large numbers of personnel are being discharged after every 12 months, instead of 18 months, does the hon. Gentleman not think that this will cause extra work in ships' offices?

Mr. Dugdale: We are quite capable of dealing with that, without at all altering the release date for W.R.N.S.

INDIA (TRANSFER OF POWER)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I desire to make an important statement on Indian policy. A similar statement is being made at the same time in another place, and by the Viceroy in New Delhi. The statement, in the form of a White Paper, will be available this afternoon.
I am glad to inform the House that the plan contained in the announcement which I am about to make, including the offer of Dominion status to one or two successor authorities, has been favourably received by all three parties represented at the Conferences held by the Viceroy with the Indian leaders during the past two days. Before making this statement, I would like to express the gratitude and appreciation of His Majesty's Government for the great services which the Viceroy has rendered.
On 20th February, 1947, His Majesty's Government announced their intention of transferring power in British India to Indian hands by June, 1948. His Majesty's Government had hoped that it would be possible for the major parties to co-operate in the working-out of the Cabinet Mission's Plan of 16th May, 1946, and evolve for India a constitution acceptable to all concerned. This hope has not been fulfilled.
The majority of the representatives of the Provinces of Madras, Bombay, the United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces and Berar, Assam, Orissa and the North-West Frontier Province, and the representatives of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and Coorg have already made progress in the task of evolving a new Constitution. On the other hand, the Muslim League Party, including in it a majority of the representatives of Bengal, the Punjab and Sind, as also the representative of British Baluchistan, has decided not to participate in the Constituent Assembly.
It has always been the desire of His Majesty's Government that power should be transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Indian people themselves. This task would have been greatly facilitated if there had been agreement among the Indian political parties. In the absence of such an agreement, the task of devising a method by which the wishes of the Indian people can be ascertained has devolved on His Majesty's Govern-

meat. After full consultation with political leaders in India, His Majesty's Government have decided to adopt for this purpose the plan contained in this announcement. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that they have no intention of attempting to frame any ultimate Constitution for India; this is a matter for the Indians themselves. Nor is there anything in this plan to preclude negotiations between communities for an united India.
It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to interrupt the work of the existing Constituent Assembly. Now that provision is made 'for certain Provinces which I will specify. His Majesty's Government trust that, as a consequence of this announcement, the Muslim League representatives of those Provinces, a majority of whose representatives are already participating in it, will now take their due share in its labours. At the same time, it is clear that any Constitution framed by this Assembly cannot apply to those parts of the country which are unwilling to accept it, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the procedure which I will outline, embodies the best practical method of ascertaining the wishes of the people of such areas on the issue whether their Constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or
(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly consisting of the representatives of those areas which decide not to participate in the existing Constituent Assembly.

When this has been done, it will be possible to determine the authority or authorities to whom power should be transferred.
The Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab (excluding the European members) will therefore each be asked to meet in two parts, one representing the Muslim majority districts and the other the rest of the Province. For the purpose of determining the population of districts, the 1941 census figures will be taken as authoritative. The Muslim majority districts in these two Provinces are set out in the appendix to the White Paper of which copies will be available when I sit down.
The members of the two parts of each Legislative Assembly sitting separately


will be empowered to vote whether or not the Province should be partitioned. If a simple majority of either part decides in favour of partition, division will take place and arrangements will be made accordingly.
Before the question as to the partition is decided, it is desirable that the representatives of each part should know in advance which Constituent Assembly the Province as a whole would join in the event of the two parts subsequently deciding to remain united. Therefore, if any member of either Legislative Assembly so demands, there shall be held a meeting of all members of the Legislative Assembly (other than Europeans) at which a decision will be taken on the issue to which Constituent Assembly the Province as a whole would join if it were decided by the two parts to remain united.
In the event of partition being decided upon, each part of the Legislative Assembly will, on behalf of the areas they represent, decide whether their constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or
(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

For the immediate purpose of deciding on the issue of partition, the members of the Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab will sit in two parts according to Muslim majority districts (as laid down in the Appendix to the White Paper) and non-Muslim majority districts. This is only a preliminary step of a purely temporary nature as it is evident that for the purposes of final partition of these Provinces a detailed investigation of boundary questions will be needed; and, as soon as a decision involving partition has been taken for either Province, a Boundary Commission will be set up by the Governor-General, the membership and terms of reference of which will be settled in consultation with those concerned. It will be instructed to demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. It will also be instructed to take into account other factors. Similar instructions will be given to the Bengal Boundary Commission. Until the report of a Boundary Commission has been put into effect, the provisional boundaries indicated in the Appendix to the White Paper will be used.
The Legislative Assembly of Sind (excluding the European members) will at a special meeting also take its own decision whether the Constitution of Sind is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent 'Assembly; or
(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

The position of the North-West Frontier Province is exceptional. Two of the three representatives of this Province are already participating in the existing Constituent Assembly. But it is clear, in view of its geographical situation, and other considerations, that, if the whole or any part of the Punjab decides not to join the existing Constituent Assembly, it will be necessary to give the North-West Frontier Province an opportunity to reconsider its position. Accordingly, in such an event, a referendum will be made to the electors of the present Legislative Assembly in the North-West Frontier Province to choose whether the constitution of the Province is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or
(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

British Baluchistan has elected a member but he has not taken his seat in the existing Constituent Assembly. In view of its geographical situation, this Province will also be given an opportunity to reconsider its decision and to choose whether its constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or
(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

Though Assam is predominantly a non-Muslim Province, the district of Sylhet which is contiguous to Bengal is predominantly Muslim. There has been a demand that, in the event of the partition of Bengal, Sylhet should be amalgamated with the Muslim part of Bengal. Accordingly, if it is decided that Bengal should be partitioned, a referendum will be held in Sylhet district, under the aegis of the Governor-General and in consultation with the Assam Provincial Government. to decide whether the district of Sylhet should continue to form part of the Assam Province or should be amalgamated with the new Province of Eastern Bengal, if that Province agrees. If the referendum results


in favour of amalgamation with Eastern Bengal, a Boundary Commission with terms of reference similar to those for the Punjab and Bengal will be set up to demarcate the Muslim majority areas of adjoining districts, which will then be transferred to Eastern Bengal. The rest of the Assam Province will in any case continue to participate in the proceedings of the existing Constituent Assembly.
If it is decided that Bengal and the Punjab should be partitioned, it will be necessary, to hold fresh elections to choose their representatives on the scale of one for every million of population according to the principle contained in the Cabinet Mission's plan of 16th May, 1946. Similar elections will also have to be held for. Sylhet in the event of its being decided that this district should form part of East Bengal. The number of representatives to which each area would be entitled is set out in full in the White Paper.
In accordance with the mandates given to them the representatives of the various areas will either join the existing Constituent Assembly or form the new Constituent Assembly.
Negotiations will have to be initiated as soon as possible on administrative consequences of any partition that may have been decided upon:—

(a) Between the representatives of the respective successor authorities about all subjects now dealt with by the Central Government, including Defence, Finance and Communications.
(b) Between different successor authorities and His Majesty's Government for treaties and regard to matters arising out of the transfer of power.
(c) In the case of Provinces that may be partitioned as to administration of all provincial subjects such as the division of assets and liabilities, the police and other services, the High Courts, provincial institutions, etc.

Agreements with tribes of the North-West Frontier of India will have to be negotiated by the appropriate successor authority.
His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that the decisions which I have announced relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet

Mission Memorandum of 12th May, 1946, remains unchanged.
In order that the successor authorities may have time to prepare themselves to take over power, it is important that all the above processes should be completed as quickly as possible. To avoid delay, the different Provinces or parts of Provinces will proceed independently as far as practicable within the conditions of this Plan, the existing Constituent Assembly and the new Constituent Assembly (if formed) will proceed to frame Constitutions for their respective territories; they will of course be free to frame their own rules.
The major political parties have repeatedly emphasised their desire that there should be the earliest possible transfer of power in India. With this desire His Majesty's Government are in full sympathy, and they are willing to anticipate the date of June 1948, for the handing over of power by the setting up of an independent Indian Government or Governments at an even earlier date. Accordingly, as the most expeditious, and indeed the only practicable, way of meeting this desire, His Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation during the current session for the transfer of power this year on a Dominion status basis to one or two successor authorities according to the decisions taken as a result of this announcement. This will be without prejudice to the right of Indian Constituent Assemblies to decide in due course whether or not the part of India in respect of which they have authority will remain within the British Commonwealth.
His Excellency the Governor-General will from time to time make such further announcements as may be necessary in regard to procedure or any other matters for carrying out the above arrangements.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Churchill rose—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. When a long statement of this kind is being made, Mr. Speaker, which it is impossible to follow, and when the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of it in his hand, is it not within the right of Members of Parliament that they, too, should have a copy so that they may follow it properly?

Mr. Speaker: It has always been the custom of this House that the Leader of the Opposition should be made acquainted


with such a statement, Hon. Members hear the statement read. I understand that it is now in the. Vote Office, and any hon. Member who wishes to have a copy can get one.

Mr. Churchill: It is, of course, impossible for the House to weigh and measure the full meaning of the most important statement which has just been made to us by the Prime Minister. I am bound to say that it seemed very difficult to understand, but the White Paper which is in the Vote Office will have to be studied with attention and will probably carry the largest measure of proof to those who are best instructed. No doubt we shall have a Debate at a suitable moment on this question. I am not asking for any particular date to be fixed at the present moment. I am bound to say, however, that the two conditions foreseen at the time of the Cripps Mission, which was set up under my Administration—namely, first, agreement between the Indian parties and, secondly, a period of Dominion status in which India or any part of it may freely decide whether or not to remain within the association of the British Commonwealth of Nations—seem to be fulfilled.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there is any Motion before the House? Surely, this is developing into a Debate and is out of Order.

Mr. Churchill: May I respectfully say that this is a matter of considerable importance? Surely, the Opposition party should be permitted to make some passing and brief comments.

Mr. Speaker: I was watching the matter. Of course, it is perfectly true that there is no Motion before the House, but I do think that at this moment there should be a slight amount of latitude. I feel sure hon. Members will not abuse it and I think it is only right.

Mr. Churchill: As I was saying, the two principles on which the Cripps Mission stood—namely, agreement and a period of Dominion status with perfect freedom to choose—appear to be fulfilled, as far as I can see from the copy of the White Paper which is now in the Vote Office and which, through the courtesy of the Prime Minister, I received an hour ago.

Mr. Gallacher: Why have we all not had a copy?

Mr. Churchill: Even in Russia there are distinctions between the grades which different people occupy. If it should prove to be the case that these two conditions have been maintained in fact and in form, then I say that all parties in this House are equally pledged by the offer and the declaration that we have made, and on these points we can only be well assured by the course of events in the next few weeks and months. It is quite true that the agreement of the various parties in India has only been achieved on the basis of partition. I gather that is the foundation. Nevertheless, after a reasonable period of deliberation and responsibility, should all these parties decide to remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations, the theme of the unity of India will be preserved, and the many nations and States of India may find their unity within the mysterious circle of the British Crown, just as the self-governing Dominions have done for so many years after all other links with the Mother Country, save those of sentiment, have been dissolved. It may, therefore, be that through a form of partition, the unity of India may, none the less, be preserved.
I do not wish to trespass upon the indulgence of the House but, finally, we must ask ourselves even at this early moment whether, after matters have proceeded thus far—and my opinions about them are well known—any better way can be found of saving India from the blood bath which may stand so near. I cannot doubt that, at first sight, and subject to the unknown factors working out in a favourable manner, it would seem that a settlement on these lines may offer to India some prospect of escape from one of the most hideous calamities which has ever ravaged the vast expanses of Asia. Naturally, we cannot form opinions upon the very great outlines and the complicated details that have been given; nor can we form decided opinions without knowing what will be the correspondence of the actual facts with what is hoped for from them, by the Government, the Viceroy and others responsible for India. However, I will say at once, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about impending legislation, that if the facts correspond to the outlines with which we have been presented this afternoon, and if it is necessary, as I gather it is, that legislation should be


introduced to implement speedily the transference of power, on Dominion status terms, to the various parts of India so that they can decide their future for themselves at leisure, it would not be right that such legislation should be deemed contentious, or that any long delays should elapse after it is introduced before it is passed into law. Therefore, while reserving our full freedom to discuss points of detail, we shall not oppose any Bills to confer Dominion status on the various parts of India, which may be presented to us on the basis of the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister *said that great credit was due to the Viceroy. These are matters about which it is extremely difficult to form decided opinions now, but if the hopes which are enshrined in this Declaration should be borne out, great credit will indeed be due, not only to the Viceroy but to the Prime Minister who advised His Majesty to appoint him.

Mr. Clement Davies: I wish to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). In the first place, one would like to point out at once that the Viceroy has shown great gifts of statesmanship and a combination of patience, initiative and energy which is indeed rare. Throughout the whole British Commonwealth, we have all been waiting for the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, and we are gratified that all three major parties in India have acquiesced in the Plan. Ever since this country announced its intention of handing over to the Indians the government of India, and the conduct of Indian affairs, we have been anxious about three things: first, that there should be a responsible authority to whom the power and duty of government can be handed over; secondly, that the authority should be such as the Indians themselves would desire, and of their own design and choosing; and, thirdly, that there should be an avoidance of turmoil. Today, the less said about details of the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister, the better. We are anxious to hear Indian opinions and views, and we should say nothing that might cause any disruption. We only hope that all will he settled amicably for the benefit of Indians of all classes, without distinction. One would only add that time is running on,

and the sooner steps are taken to enable the transition to take place effectively, the better.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the tremendously important votes which will be taken as the result of the welcome announcement which my right hon. Friend has made today, may I ask whether the Government will support the Viceroy and the authorities in India in all the steps they may take to ensure that the communities in India are able to exercise their rights without fear of violence and intimidation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may rest assured that every endeavour will be made to get a true reflection of the views of India.

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the reprints of the White Paper referred to by the Prime Minister are not in the Vote Office?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions. The first is about the Anglo-Indian community. A great many of these people wish to retain British nationality for 10 years until they see how these new Governments progress. The second question is about the district of Cachar, which adjoins Sylhet in Assam. It also wishes to be included in Bengal. The third point is about the tribes on the North-East frontier of India. The Prime Minister mentioned the tribes of the North-West frontier. He did not mention the tribes on the North-East frontier.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first point, I think it hardly arises. That is a matter that will obviously come up under the Constitution. With regard to the second point, I did say there would have to be a boundary commission with regard to Sylhet, and I would take it--I am not acquainted with that particular district intimately—that, if there is any district adjoining that might be brought into Bengal suitably, that would be a matter for consideration. With regard to the tribes on the North-East frontier, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows so well, they come into the Province of Assam; and that will fall to be dealt with by the Constituent Assembly of which Assam forms a part.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to address a couple of remarks to the Prime Minister.


I see in one of the national papers that the Indian leaders agree to the carve-up. I do not think it is a very desirable solution of the problem of India. I think our deliberately coming out of India would be a complete solution. I am very suspicious because of the fact that the Leader of the Tory Opposition gives the Plan support, because, after all—

Mr. Churchill: What of the leaders of the Russian opposition?

Mr. Gallacher: That is an old and worn record that is sadly played out. The Leader of the Opposition has a long record in connection with India, and it is a very bad one.

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with the statement that the Prime Minister made.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. How is it that the Leader of the Opposition can make a statement of the character he did without my making a reply, and pointing out my objection? I have not got the document, but my objection to the document—whose contents I heard only today—is strengthened very much by the fact that it is so wholeheartedly supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who has a very bad record in connection with India. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that he and his immediate advisers and Lord Mountbatten have earned the thanks of the people of this country and of India for generations to come, by the brilliance with which they have borne this present phase of our relations with India?

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the plebiscite to be taken in North-West India —of the conditions and circumstances in which it is to be taken?

The Prune Minister: It will be under the of the Viceroy. I may explain that the position of the North-West

frontier is rather different, because in the Legislature there is a weighting of various minority communities' views, and it is proposed to take a plebiscite in order to find out what is the view of the total number of actual voters. Obviously, that will have to be done with very great care, with the local Government and Central Government taking part.

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, to say something about what is causing tremendous anxiety, and that is the position of the Indian Army? I do think that at this stage we ought to be told something, so that those people may know where they are in relation to the proposed changes.

The Prime Minister: I should rather not make a statement without considering the whole matter very closely. It is one, of course, that is under very close observation. But I should be ill-advised to make a statement now.

Mr. Peter Freeman: In the event of the political parties in India showing greater unity in the near future than they do at present, is there any arrangement or proposal to call a Conference of the political parties in, say, the next four or five years, with a view to taking up a united Constitution then, although they are not agreed at the moment?

The Prime Minister: I think that is looking rather far ahead. One cannot look too far ahead. There has to be consultation.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is to be an opportunity for a Debate; and, if there is not, if he will try to keep the House constantly informed with authoritative information?

The Prime Minister: I certainly will. I should rather deprecate a Debate at the present time, because the affair is now in the hands of the Indian leaders. But I will certainly do my best to keep the House informed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 116.

Division No. 228.]
AYES
[3.56 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monslow, W


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gibbins, J.
Moody, A. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gilzean, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Attewell, H. C.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Moyle, A


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Austin, H. Lewis
Grenfell, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bacon, Miss A.
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Balfour, A.
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Oliver, G. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Hale, Leslie
Orbach, M.


Barstow, P G.
Hall, W. G.
Paget, R. T.


Barton, C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Parkin, B T.


Battley, J. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Bechervaise, A. E
Hardman, D. R.
Pearson, A.


Benson, G.
Hardy, E. A.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Berry, H.
Harrison, J.
Piratin, P.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Binns, J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Blackburn, A. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Pryde, D. J.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bottomley, A. G.
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.
House, G.
Ranger, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hoy, J.
Rankin, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exchge)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Reeves, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Irving, W. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Robens, A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brawn, W. J. (Rugby)
John, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Royle, C.


Burden, T. W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Keenan, W.
Sargood, R.


Byers, Frank
Kendall, W. D
Scott-Elliot, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kinley, J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Kirkwood, D.
Sharp, Granville


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shurmer, P.


Coldrick, W.
Lever, N H
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Collins, V. J
Levy, B. W
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Comyns, Dr.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Cook, T. F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Corvedale, Viscount
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, C (Colchester)


Cove, W. G.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Longden, F.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Davies, Edward (Burstem)
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAdam, W
Soskice, Maj Sir F


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McAllister, G.
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mack, J. D.
Stokes, R. R.


Diamond, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKinlay, A. S.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Swingler, S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Ewart, R.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fernyhough, E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Maninng, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Foot, M. M.
Marquand, H. A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Tolley, L.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mayhew, C. P.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gallacher, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)




Warbey, W. N.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Woodburn, A


Watkins, T. E.
Wilkes, L.
Wyatt, W.


Watson, W. M.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. F.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Michael Stewart and


While, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, E.
Mr. Simmons.




NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Nicholson, G


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Haughton, S. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H P


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Barlow, Sir J
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baxter, A. B.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Geamish, Maj. [...]
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Boles, Lt.-Col, D C (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J A
Hurd, A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Challen, C
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Channon, H
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smith, E. P (Ashford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Spearman, A. C. M


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spence, H. R.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


De la Bère, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Duthie, W. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thorp Lt.-Col. R A F


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marsden, Capt. A
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser H C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Medlicott, F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Grant, Lady
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C


Gridley, Sir A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molt-Radclyffe, Maj. C E
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Ascertainment of activities to be treated as comprised in an industry.)

(1) A development council order shall designate, in such manner as appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be requisite for preventing uncertainty, the activities that are to be treated as constituting the industry for which the development council is established (whether being such as are regarded for any other purpose as those of a single industry or such as are regarded for any other purpose as those of a group of industries or of a section or sections of an industry or industries).

(2) An order amending a development council order may provide that further activities, designated as aforesaid, are to be treated as

included in the industry for which the council is established, or that activities, designated as aforesaid, which are for the time being so treated are no longer to be so treated.

(3) The preceding subsections shall apply also to an order under section nine of this Act and an order amending such an order, with the substitution of references to the industry in connection with which funds are to be made available under that section for references to the industry for which a development council is established and other requisite modifications.

(4) In accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, the expression "the industry," where used in this Act in relation to a development council or to an order under section nine of this Act, shall be construed as references to the industry that is for the time being in accordance with those provisions, that for which the council is established or in connection with which funds are to be made available, as the case may be.—[Mr. Marquand.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.6 p.m.

The Paymaster - General (Mr. Marquand): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had to leave the House on important business but he will be returning shortly. This new Clause is designed to meet a point which was made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), with his usual vigour. He was supported from both sides of the Committee, and carried the Committee with him in a famous battle on his proposal to amend the Bill. He suggested that the term "industry," which is used throughout the Bill, should not be confined to narrow groupings of firms. He gave the example of textiles, in which he argued there were factors common to wool, cotton, silk and the staple rayon industries, and that it was desirable to have a development council for the whole textile industry. The Government want to meet the point then raised and, of course, to accept the view which the Committee registered by its vote.
However, we were not entirely satisfied with the Amendment carried by the Committee because, for one thing, it might throw doubt on the power to set up a council for what might be regarded as part of an industry; for another thing, it would be meaningless to refer to an industry or a group of industries in the first instance but throughout the rest of the Bill simply to refer to "the industry." We have been advised that the two expressions, though intended to describe the same thing, would in law have different meanings, and that confusion might thus result. In order to meet the point to which the Committee attached importance, this new Clause has been drafted to replace the original Clause 14, which dealt with the definition of an industry. The new Clause states explicitly that "industry" may mean a group of industries, or a section of an industry, as well as what may commonly be called a single industry.
The Clause is designed to meet another point which was raised in Committee. Hon. Members opposite objected to the fact that Clause 14 was drawn permissively; that is, it authorised the Minister to define an industry to which an

Order related but did not require him to do so. The view was then expressed that a definition ought invariably to be included, in order to avoid any doubt as to what activities brought firms within the scope of an Order. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, during the Committee stage, said that he was advised it would be undesirable to impose an absolute obligation on Ministers. He was advised that while definition could undoubtedly be inserted in the great majority of Orders, there might be cases in which that would be impossible without excessive elaboration. In such cases the scope of the industry concerned could be clearly ascertained in practice; and it was wiser to leave the matter to practice than to introduce a verbal formula. My hon. Friend agreed further to consider the point, and this Clause goes far to meet the criticisms which were made. It requires the Minister to designate the activities which are to be treated as constituting the industry for which the development council is to be established, and ensures that there shall be no uncertainty. The Government have done their best, after considerable thought, to meet the criticisms which were made from both sides, and I hope that this Clause will be found acceptable.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I will not detain the House further than to say that this Clause is acceptable, and that its 23 lines handsomely recapitulate the attitude indicated in Committee. I thank the Paymaster-General for having conceded a Parliamentary victory to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), especially as I, too, had some part in the battle.

Mr. Rhodes: I wish to express my appreciation of the way this Clause has been drafted, and also to say that we have been handsomely met in this matter.

Mr. William Shepherd: While we are pleased to see these two matters incorporated, I do not think the Paymaster-General paid sufficient attention to the second point. With Clause 14 as it stood, this Bill would have organised nothing but chaos. It is possible under the new Clause, by an amending Order, to extend the scope of the activities of a development council. When the activities


of a development council are to be extended, I should like an assurance that all sections of the industry concerned will be consulted before any alteration takes place.

Mr. Marquand: I think I can safely give that assurance. It seems a perfectly reasonable point.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to establish development councils, and purposes thereof.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 6, leave out "or groups of industries."— [Mr. Marquand.]

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
and shall not make any such order if it shall appear to him that a large majority of the persons carrying on business in the industry, representing the greater part of the production in that industry, and a large majority of the workers in that industry are opposed to the making of such an order.
The object of this Amendment is to meet the point, frequently expressed in Committee, that development councils should not be imposed on an unwilling industry. I think it is the general opinion of both sides that these development councils will not be successful, and will not attain the object we all have in view, unless they are set up with the good will of all concerned. We have put forward one or two other Amendments in different forms to meet this point, and I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this one. It provides that a development council shall not be set up when there is a large majority, in either of the two sections which make up the industry concerned, in opposition to the proposal. We have had several statements and assurances from the Government that only in the last resort do they intend to impose a development council on an unwilling industry. We should like to see this assurance in some statutory form, and this is the mildest form in which we can ask the Government to do it.

Mr. Harold Roberts: During the Committee stage, objection was taken by hon. Members opposite on administrative grounds to any Amendment of this kind. They

pointed out that it might be difficult to ascertain a majority. That point is met in this Amendment, because it is left to the Minister to gather the sense of the industry concerned in such way as he may think most appropriate.

Mr. Marquand: I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment. It would lay upon the Minister an obligation to ensure that there was a majority on both sides of the industry in favour of a development council. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear that the Government have every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion, and does not wish to impose a development council on an unwilling industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee said:
My right hon. and learned Friend hoped very much that it would never be necessary to impose a development council, by Order, without the consent of everybody concerned. He went on to point out that if the Government did decide to impose a development council upon an industry which did not appear to want it, the Order setting up the development council would have to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House.
There is that check already provided in the Bill, that if a Minister went so far as to propose setting up a development council against the substantial opinion of the industry, he would have to have his Order approved by the House where objections could be taken. My hon Friend then went on to say:
I should regard it as highly probable that it would be precisely the industry which needed the development council which would be the one not to want it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 24th April, 5947; c. 57–8.]
It is on that point that we fail to agree with hon. Members opposite. We wish to proceed by agreement rather than by compulsion. While my right hon. and learned Friend does not wish to impose a development council upon an unwilling industry, nevertheless the fact may be that the least progressive elements of the industry concerned might constitute the majority.
If the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Supply, or whoever it may be, has in reserve the power to bring an order before this House before setting up a development council he is in a stronger position in dealing with a backward industry, or an industry which happens to have a numerically large proportion of unprogressive elements. It may


be said that a "numerically larger proportion," is a rather vague phrase, but if anybody asks me what is meant by it, I ask those who put forward the Amendment how they propose to ascertain the majority in such cases? It would be difficult to ascertain whether the majority existed one way or the other. In view of the difficulties of ensuring majorities, the difficulty in arranging polls to determine majorities, and the desirability—

Mr. H. Roberts: If there is a technical difficulty in ascertaining the majority, how will the Minister ascertain if the industry is unwilling? Surely, the technical difficulty is still there.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, the technical difficulty remains, but it is more serious when the obligation is imposed upon the Minister, rather than that he should sense opinion and hold discussions. The Minister might feel that the majority of the industry was against him, but that the good sense of the progressive persons in the industry was on his side. It would be for the House, in view of all the circumstances, to decide whether a development council should be set up in that industry.

Mr. W. Shepherd: We have had a very disappointing reply from the Paymaster-General. He asked how a majority of the industry was to be determined. I would refer him to his own Bill, Clause 1 (3) of which says:
Before making a development council order the Board or Minister concerned shall consult any organisation appearing to them or him to be representative of substantial numbers of persons carrying on business in the industry and such organisations representative of persons employed in the industry as appear to the Board or Minister concerned to be appropriate.
There is an indication of the means by which the Minister proposes to determine whether there is a majority of people in support of or against this proposal. We on this side find no comfort in the fact that a Resolution will be submitted to the House. We know that the Government have a mammoth majority here, and that it is possible for an industry which took a go per cent. objection to have a development order made in respect of it because of the substantial majority in this House. While there are technical difficulties in the determination of the majority, I believe that the value of accepting an Amendment of this kind, the

psychological value, overrides these considerations. If industry holds the view that this is something which will be imposed upon them whether they like it or not, this Bill will lose a lot of its value. But if the Minister would say that the Government intend to go by the will of the majority, to pursue the voluntary, rather than the compulsory, principle, the Bill will have a better showing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken the view he has taken, because I do not think it is in the best interests of all concerned.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I can see the difficulty in which the Minister is placed. He wants to be able to impose development councils on industries where necessary. At the same time, to be able to do that he is taking power to be able to impose such orders against the will of an industry. During the Committee stage, it was clear that Government spokesmen were anxious to carry with them as large a measure of approval in industry as they could possibly get. Now, while paying a certain amount of lip service to the desirability of having the consent of industry, they are taking powers to override industry at any time. They are asking us to rely on promises and intentions at some future date, which might be worthless. I should have thought that a method could have been devised to meet both points of view. I am certain that the brains which devised a Measure like the Transport Bill would not be stuck to find a definition of the words, "a large majority," whether it was in relation to capital, output, or workers. The Minister said that the Government would be involved in finding out whether there was a majority in favour of a development council. The Amendment would reverse that. The onus would lie on the industry to say to the Minister that they do not want a council. That would make the issue clear. There would be no obligation on the Minister to say, I propose to do this." It would leave to industries the onus and responsibility of saying that they did not want a development council, that a majority did not want a council.

Mr. Rhodes: There would be only two instances in which such an order would be made, perhaps against the wishes of the industry—first, in the case of a very badly organised and inefficient industry;


second, in the case of a highly organised, but closed, industry, working in a price ring. In the latter case, a development council might be necessary to investigate prices and conditions in relation to consumers overseas. It might be necessary to investigate conditions right the way through the industry. The Minister, or the Government, could not possibly arrive at a majority.

4.30 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this Amendment. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that the industries not wishing to have a development council would probably be those which were either backward or highly efficient, with price rings. There are many other reasons why councils should not be imposed. The Minister put forward two objections to this Amendment. It is one thing to discuss with an industry the value of a council in that industry. It is a very different matter to discuss the question with an industry with the possible threat that, if it does not agree, a development council will be imposed upon it against its will. I think that would introduce an element into these bodies which would be very undesirable and would mitigate against their best use. With regard to the difficulty of getting the views of the majority of either section—employers or those employed in an industry—I cannot think that it would be impossible to do so. In many industries votes have been taken on different matters. Yardsticks have been agreed upon—it may be in regard to production—and there have been agreements on different points. Probably most of the industries in this country, at one time or another, have had discussions and have come to decisions on matters. Many of them have developed their own particular yardsticks which could be very well used by a Minister when wishing to find out the advisability of imposing a development council on any particular industry. For those reasons, I am sorry that the Minister is not able to accept this Amendment.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I think the argument put forward by the Paymaster-General proves the weakness of his own case. If he will cast his mind back, he will recall, I imagine, that there

was no industry in this country in which those concerned were more tenacious and stubborn in their point of view than the cotton industry. Yet the President of the Board of Trade went to Manchester on various occasions to address representatives of that industry and succeeded very largely, I believe—perhaps even sometimes against their will—in persuading them that development steps must be taken to help that industry to meet the future. If there is an inefficient industry in which it may seem, in the first instance, difficult to obtain a majority either of the employers or of the employees on the necessity for a body of this kind, is the Paymaster-General asking us to believe that the Minister concerned will not feel it his duty to go to the heart of this industry, wherever it may be, to call together the responsible leaders, and to say, "Look here, for this reason and that reason, we think it necessary that there should be set up one of these bodies to go into the position of this industry"? If he had all the statistical evidence that is to be provided in the future, chapter and verse to support the argument which he will put before the representatives of this inefficient industry, is the Paymaster-General asking us to doubt that the Minister will carry the day? Of course he will.
In this Amendment, it is left to the Minister to decide. If it should appear to him that a large majority of the persons carrying on the business, or a large majority of the workers in the industry, are opposed to the making of an order, it is in his own hands to decide, and I should have thought that, in those circumstances and having regard to the powers and the information which an intelligent Minister could present to an industry in a persuasive way, he would bring them to his point of view. Therefore, I think that there ought to be no difficulty in the way of the Minister accepting this very reasonable Amendment. A great many men engaged in industry are very nervous about what would appear to be the extensive powers sought under this Clause which we are trying to amend. We have all to work together in the future to get through the great economic crisis with which we are now faced, and which may become greater within the next six or 12 months. If we are to get through this crisis, there


must be real co-operation between the Government and industry—the Government contributing their knowledge which they alone have, and industry contributing the experience which it alone has. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: It seems to me that, in theory, most of us would say that this was not an unreasonable proposal. No one wants to apply compulsion unless it is essential in the public interest to do so. What is the weakness of this Amendment? It seems that the Opposition are putting forward a theory, and we must try to see how it would work out in practice. I think that it is almost impossible that the majority of employers and workers in industry will object to development councils being set up. My argument is based on what has already come out in the working party reports. I think that hon. Members opposite will generally agree that the working parties were representative of the industries concerned, both employers and workers, and in the majority of cases the working party reports have definitely advocated the setting up of development councils. Therefore, it seems that the odds are 99 to one against this contingency arising. Supposing it were to arise, and that there was a small or inefficient industry. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), who pointed out to the House that there may be other reasons—it seems to me that if there are other reasons the Minister must use his judgment. But supposing, as I am prepared to do, that a small industry is inefficient and badly organised, and one in which employers and workers are not willing to accept modern ideas, then I think that we are faced with the dilemma of what the Minister is to do. This is a point which I want to put to hon. Members opposite. Is the Minister to sit down under this, or are the Government going to govern and take what is the best line in the broad public interest? I conceive that this Bill is in the broad public interest. I do not regard it as standing for any particular section—for organisations of workers or employers. It is to get everyone to work together and to get industry more efficient in the public interest. I agree with what the Paymaster-General has said. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I

shall have much pleasure in going into the Lobby to vote against it.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude. I believe that these development councils in appropriate circumstances are capable of doing very good work, but only on two conditions: First, that they are not set up unnecessarily to do a job which is already being done by other agencies successfully; and, secondly, that they are voluntary. I do not think that, if they are forced on an unwilling industry, they will do any good. Those who have had any experience of co-operation know that an ounce of voluntary co-operation is worth a ton of compulsion. I know that the President of the Board of Trade feels that way, but we have to look ahead and to provide for the possibility of more dictatorial and more intolerant Presidents of the Board of Trade than the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now occupies that office.
I gather from the Minister that he sees three difficulties in this. First, he sees the possibility of one party holding up development in the industry. This Amendment provides for not setting up a development council if a majority of both sides of the industry are against it. The second difficulty was that of counting heads, but I cannot believe that that is insuperable. It is the sort of thing that we have to do in our everyday life, for example, in ascertaining the feeling of a meeting for or against a certain course. It cannot then be simply a question of counting heads. The third point was in relation to forcing development councils upon inefficient industries when both sides of those industries believed that the idea would not work. The only thing is, I suggest, to go flat out and tell both sides of the inefficient industry that a development council would help to get things right. I, therefore, urge the Minister to consider once again whether there is in the Amendment anything which is really contrary to the proposals which he has in mind for getting these development councils to work.

Mr. Marquand: With the leave of the House I should like to say firstly how much I appreciate the helpful contributions which have been made in the discussion on this Amendment. The spirit on both sides of the House is the same. We all want to make this plan work and


to use the most appropriate means to persuade industries to take advantage of the opportunity of having one of these development councils. The speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) was particularly helpful in this matter. It seems to me that the argument which he adduced really supported the attitude which I have taken. He instanced the example of the President of the Board of Trade going to Lancashire in order lo persuade a reluctant cotton industry to accept his policy. I agree; I understand that that is what happened. But the President of the Board of Trade went to Lancashire and persuaded the industry because he had, not exactly a blank cheque, in his pocket but one with a limit on it; and secondly, he represented the Government which could bring in legislation to deal with the affairs of the industry, because the parties concerned could not agree on the policy which they thought appropriate. He had power in reserve. I attach little importance to my subsidiary argument about ascertaining the majority.
The argument on which I should like to rest my case for continuing to resist the Amendment is that the power in reserve for bringing an Order before the House of Commons will help the Minister considerably in persuading an industry. I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) was going to demonstrate the independence of the National Liberal Party froth the other

party opposite, but unfortunately he came down on the wrong side of the fence. I would ask him to remember the example of the trade boards which were introduced 40 years ago by the Liberal Party, in relation to industries, which would be unanimous today in desiring to keep those trade boards. There are cases in which the imposition of a progressive reform of this kind proves eventually to the industries concerned that the reform is desirable and worth while, and those industries end by accepting it. I would point out in conclusion that the argument about consideration by this House is the one which has substance in it. It is not only this House which has to consider these matters but both Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) said that the present Government had a majority in this House. That is so, but the time may come when the Government will not have such a large majority; and thee is always another place. In present circumstances it brings to bear a different set of opinions, or if we like, prejudices. I should have thought that the matter was well safeguarded by those considerations.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 234.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[4.47 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.


Amory, D. Heathcote
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Barlow, Sir J.
Grant, Lady
Medlicott, F.


Baxter, A. B.
Gridley, Sir A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)


Birch, Nigel
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Haughton, S. G.
Nicholson, G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Hon. A.
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.


Challen, C.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, Stanley


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Raikes, H. V.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Cuthbert, W N.
Langford-Holt, J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Digby, S. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Dadds-Parker, A. D
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Drewe, C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Smithers, Sir W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Studholme, H. G.




Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, D.
York, C.


Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Webbe, Sir H (Abbey)



Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Major Conant and


Touche, G. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Major Ramsay.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hale, Leslie
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Proctor, W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Pryde, D. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hardy, E A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Attewell, H. C.
Harrison, J.
Randall, H. E.


Austin, H. Lewis
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Ranger, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rankin, J.


Ayrton, Gould, Mrs. B.
Herbison, Miss M
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Bacon, Miss A
Hobson, C. R.
Reeves, J.


Balfour, A.
Holman, P.
Rhodes, H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barstow, P. G.
House, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barton, C.
Hoy, J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Battley, J. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Royle, C.


Benson, G
Irving, W J
Sargood, R.


Berry, H.
Janner, B.
Scott-Elliot, W


Beswick, F.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Bing, G. H. C
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.)
Sharp, Granville


Binns, J.
John, W.
Shurmer, P.


Blackburn, A. R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Silverman, S S. (Nelson)


Boardman, H.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Skeffington, A. M.


Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Keenan, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Kendall, W. D
Skinnard, F. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Key, C. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Bramall, E. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Lang, G.
Snow, Capt. J. W


Brown, George (Belper)
Lawson, Rt. Hon, J. J.
Solley, L. J


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Lee, F (Hulme)
Sorensen, R. W.


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Burden, T. W.
Leslie, J. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Levy, B. W.
Stamford, W.


Byers, Frank
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Steele, T.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Chamberlain, R. A
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Stokes, R. R.


Champion, A. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Stross, Dr. B.


Chater, D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Stubbs, A. E.


Chetwynd, G. R
Longden, F.
Swingler, S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lyne, A. W.
Sylvester, G O.


Collins, V J.
McAdam, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Comyns, Dr L
McAllister, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cook, T. F.
McGhee, H. G
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Mack, J. D.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Corlett, Dr J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Corvedale, Viscount
McKinlay, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cove, W. G.
McLeavy, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawley, A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Titterington, M. F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tolley, L.


Daggar, G.
Mallalieu, J. P W
Usborne, Henry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Deer, G.
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Walkden, E.


Diamond, J.
Marquand, H. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Driberg, T. E. N
Mathers, G
Wallace, H. W. (Waithamstow, E.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Edelman, M.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Monslow, W.
Watson, W. M.


Ewart, R.
Moody, A. S.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Farthing, W. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Foot, M M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Forman, J. C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (L'wish'm, E.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Gallacher, W.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkes, L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gibbins, J.
Neat, H. (Claycross)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Gibson, C. W.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gilzean, A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Orbach, M.
Willis, E.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Parkin, B. T.
Woodburn, A


Grierson, E.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Yates, V. F.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Piratin, P.



Guy, W. H
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Question put, and agreed to.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
and the appointments which the Board or the Minister concerned proposes to make to the development council as the independent members of such council shall he considered in such consultations.''
It only needs a sentence or two to commend this simple Amendment to the Government. It provides that those whom the President of the Board of Trade proposes to appoint to the development councils shall be appointed after consultation with those in the industry whom he is charged to summon under this Clause. I am sure that the Paymaster-General would agree that those we appoint should be men who would merit the confidence of those engaged in managing and in producing in the industry under consideration. The President of the Board of Trade desires to have the good will of all sides of the industry, and I cannot conceive that he can possibly find any exception to this Amendment, which I hope he will except.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I beg to second the Amendment.
A good deal of the efficiency and success of the development councils will depend upon the care which is exercised in the selection of independent members. It is possible to foresee that an unwise selection of independent members would be sufficient to ruin a development council, and, therefore, we on this side are most anxious that the independent members selected shall have the confidence of those with whom they have to work. This Amendment suggests that in the consultations which normally must take place between the Minister and the industry the question of the selection of individuals to act as independent members must be considered.
There is a very great similarity between the position of independent members of the development councils and independent members of working parties. One feels that, as they have to work side by side over a long period of time, the members who form the backbone of the councils—the workers, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other—should have some say in making certain that the independent members are men in whom they have confidence.
5.0 p.m.
One does not want the independent members to be Government stooges, or to

represent the London School of Economics or the City of London. One wants to have as independent members really practical men. It will he difficult to get such men to act as independent members, and for that reason, I hope the Paymaster-General will see the wisdom of this Amendment. If there is faulty selection of the independent members, the work of the development councils may well he jeopardised.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman explain one point? I see that his name is attached to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 28. Does he intend to move that Amendment, which would mean that, if the present Amendment were carried, any consultations about the appointment of independent members would be embodied in a report to Parliament? In that case, it would certainly be difficult to get independent members.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member had better wait and see what happens.

Mr. Marquand: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) that it is very desirable that industry should have confidence in the independent members. I hope I shall not be suspected of having any special affection for the London School of Economics, and I do not know why my right hon and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade should be suspected of such affection. There is every intention to appoint to the development councils not only persons who are well qualified by their knowledge of industry, their public spirit, and their honesty and uprightness, but also persons who will gain the confidence of members of both sides of industry In order to ensure that there shall be an opportunity for consultation in that way, provision has been made in the Bill, but it is made at the point at which such consultation would be wanted to take place. The Amendment refers to Clause r, in which we are dealing with the making of an order for the establishment of a development council
The point at issue is whether a given industry should have a development council. At that stage, one does not necessarily consider who should be members of the development council. When agreement has been obtained and it has been decided to set up a development council,


one then proceeds to consider who ought to be on it, and at that point we find, in Clause 2 (5), a provision that
a development council order may specify requirements as to the appointment of, and the tenure and vacation of office by, the members of the council, as to qualification or disqualification for membership, and as to bodies or persons whom the Board or Minister concerned is to consult before appointing persons to be members.
Those words are included deliberately to take account of the desirability of there being consultation before the indepedent members, as well as the other members, are appointed. There is every intention of consulting both sides of the industry as to the acceptability of the independent members. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Lyttelton: As my name appeared to this Amendment, I will advise my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw it on the assurances which the Paymaster-General has given.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
and there shall be presented to each House of Parliament at the same time as the draft of the order is presented a report by the Board or Minister concerned on the consultations required under Subsection (3) of this Section.
This Amendment covers a slightly different point. We recognise that in regard to consultation there is a difficulty. The Government wish to preserve the idea that there is no obligation upon them to take the advice tendered to them in the consultation; indeed, in matters of defence, we have had recently an example of how perfunctory the consultation with the Chiefs of Staff can be. The Government are always in a position to say, "We have to carry the responsibility, we have consulted this or that body "—they may or may not say so—" but we have decided to proceed on the following lines." The line of demarcation between informing the representative bodies either of the workers or the employers of what the Government intend to do, and consulting them upon what is the best course to take, is a very narrow one.
The object of the Amendment' is to bring out into the open what consultations have taken place so that the Government may be questioned as to exactly what points of view were put forward by either side in industry. It is quite a different point from the one which deals with the appointment of independent members to the development councils. We pressed for an Amendment of this sort in Committee, so that where there is a concensus of opinion in the industy against the composition of a development council, the Government will perceive it. The Amendment is designed merely to ensure that there would be a report to the House on the consultations, with the names of the bodies with whom the Government had consulted before the development council order was brought forward.

Mr. Marquand: The Government are in agreement with the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in believing that Parliament should be informed of the views of the various parties in the industry on the Minister's proposals, but we do not welcome an Amendment which would compel the Minister to publish a report on the consultations, simply because we find it very difficult to see how a formal report of that kind would serve any useful purpose. Consultations with industry on matters of this kind are fairly intimate affairs. They do not consist of one or two strictly formal meetings, with people in attendance taking shorthand notes; they are informal meetings, soundings here and there, and they might even take place over a luncheon table; they might take place sometimes with two or three members of an organisation, leaving out some others.
There must be a certain amount of flexibility and informality in a situation in which it may be necessary to persuade a rather reluctant group of individuals to accept a desirable course of action. In the course of discussions of this nature the points of view of the members of the industry, and even the Minister's point of view, might undergo changes as the consultations proceeded. Modifications might be agreed upon, explanations accepted, and compromises negotiated. It would be difficult to give in a brief Parliamentary paper even a bare summary of the conclusions of a complicated series of discussions which would be accepted by all present as balanced and fair, and which


would avoid the danger of reawakening controversies which were on their way to being settled. It would be undesirable to include in the Statute an absolute requirement for this purpose, but my right hon. and learned Friend certainly has in mind, not merely to have consultations, but also to give Parliament, when the time comes for the presentation of the order, an outline of the sort of discussions that have taken place. I feel that, on the whole, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. H. Roberts: We are informed that there are in this Bill two safeguards against Ministerial tyranny—one, consultation with interested parties, the other, approval by both Houses of Parliament. If the safeguards were to be a reality.one would have thought that there was not the least difficulty in furnishing a clear account of how the Minister has implemented the first before coming to Parliament to ask them to proceed with the second. It appears from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that consultations may be so very irregular and informal that no coherent account may be given without reawakening angry passions. I do not believe that. Any competent civil servant could perfectly well prepare a concise and reasoned account of consultations whether they took place at the Ministry, or over cups of coffee, or, indeed, anywhere else. There would not be the least difficulty if the will were there; if the will were not there then, of course, it would be very difficult indeed. If the idea is that this provision is not to be in the Act but that it is to be left to the will and pleasure of the Minister to tell the House from time to time as much or as little as he chooses, I agree that there are great difficulties. But the difficulties do not arise in the subject matter; they arise from the fact that in reality consultation is not at all welcomed by the Government.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I listened to the statement of the Paymaster-General and I and my hon. Friends on this side sympathise with the difficulty in which the Government may find themselves in this matter of recording consultations. However, we also find grave cause for concern in the feeling that exists in the minds of many manufacturers that they have not been consulted. In connection with many Bills, doubt and dispute are arising as to whether consultation has taken place. We

had a dispute on the Floor of this House a little time ago as to whether a particular industry had been consulted in connection with the Statistics of Trade Bill. What we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to remove the element of doubt which exists and which may cause friction between industry and the Government in the application of this Bill. It is as important that industry should feel that it has been consulted as that it should, in fact, have been consulted, and we suggest that our Amendment—calling upon the Minister to give an account of the consultations. or even, perhaps, a list of the organisations consulted—would go a long way to reassure these people. It would, at any rate, show Members of the House which organisations had been brought into consultation with the Government. I hope that if the Minister is unable to accept the full implications of our Amendment he will at any rate give us an assurance that when an Order is brought before the House a list of the organisations consulted by him during the process of the negotiations will be laid.

Mr. Sparks: I do not think that there is very much substance in the argument put forward from the benches opposite, and I believe hon. Gentlemen are stirring up what is very much a mare's nest. As I understand the Bill, the draft order would, in any case, be laid before each House of Parliament and if, in fact, there had been no consultation, or if there had been tyranny exercised by the Minister over some industry or organisation, I cannot imagine hon. Members opposite remaining dumb. As a matter of fact, when an order is presented to the House, that is the opportunity they will have of calling attention to any so-called tyranny or lack of consultation which now appear to them to be a danger.
5.15 p.m.
As for a report of the consultation, the only satisfactory one would be a verbatim record of what Tom said on the one hand, what Harry said on the other, and what somebody else said about this, that and the other, which is absurd. Unless we had a verbatim report the record would have to be put into very condensed form, and once we start condensing a report of that description it is always liable to be misinterpreted. I ask hon. Members opposite not to press this Amendment. As I have said, the opportunity to voice any


misgivings which they may feel is open to them at any time when an order comes before the House for approval.

Mr. Lyttelton: Who will listen to them?

Mr. Sparks: Some of us will be there to listen to them, and in any case, I hope that the benches opposite will be full on such occasions. The Minister will not do these things behind the back of the House and I feel certain that if there has been any tyranny or unfairness the Opposition will have a great deal to say when an order comes before Parliament.

Mr. Challen: I thought that the speech of the Minister emphasised the need for some report of the kind suggested in the Amendment. He made it quite clear that there may be the most informal consultations—as he said, over a luncheon table—and I cannot conceive anything that would give rise to greater apprehension than his holding a luncheon at, say, the Dorchester, with a few selected persons behind closed doors, at which a conclusion was reached about the appoint. ment of a development council for the whole of an industry—

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): If such a luncheon were at the Dorchester it would undoubtedly be at the invitation of an industrialist.

Mr. Lyttelton: Or a Cabinet Minister.

Mr. Challen: I was going on to say that such a proceeding would lead to a good many questions as to who was present and who paid the bill. The suggestion has been made that questions and complaints of this nature concerning hole-and-corner methods can be raised on the Floor of the House when the Government come forward with a development order, but we know very well that that is too late. Surely, it is clear that we are not asking for a complete report of all that is said, but for some indication of the nature of the consultations in order that we may decide whether we consider them sufficiently important.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution, etc., of development councils.)

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "number," to the first "of," in line 10.
May I ask your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with regard to the remainder of this group of Amendments:
In line 11, at end, insert:
so however that each of the said categories shall be equally represented on the development council.
In line 11, at end, insert:
Provided always that the number of independent members on the council shall be less than the number of persons specified to represent either category (a) or category (b) as defined in the preceding Subsection.
In line 11, at end, insert:
Provided always that the number of persons from categories (a) and (b) as defined in the preceding Subsection shall, taken together, be such as to form a majority on the council.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if all four Amendments were discussed together.

Mr. Lyttelton: I hope very much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to cut short the discussion by accepting one or other of these Amendments. Naturally, I would prefer him to accept the strongest of the four. The point is not a very elaborate one and I think that if, on the Committee stage, the Whips had not been frowning so much after an early defeat of the Government, those on the benches opposite might have supported this Amendment. However, they received a severe admonition about the dangers of bringing the Government down by defeating them continually in Committee, and therefore they voted against them.
The point is a very simple one. Ministers—not only the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his nicety in these matters, but certain other Ministers as well —are getting very wide powers over industry to appoint development councils, and I do not think it is a very outrageous thing to ask that those eight Ministers should not have the power to pack development councils with Government nominees, whether those nominees are ex-Ministers who have been unable to hold their jobs satisfactorily, or whether they are retired officials of the Labour Party. Whoever they may be, we do not want to think that Ministers have the right to pack development councils to such an extent that Government nominees can outvote both sides of the industry. It is bad enough when there is a conflict of opinion


between workers on one side and employers on the other; then the Government nominees really hold the balance, and get into the position which the Irish Party used to occupy in the days when I first took an interest in politics.
The idea that one of those eight Ministers should be able to mobilise a platoon or even half a company of nominees in order to out-vote both the workers, who represent the major element in production, and the employers, who represent of course a less respectable but nevertheless tolerably important part of production, is very uncongenial to our way of thinking, and I believe it is to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. So I ask him to do what visitors to Conservative fetes or other charitable institutions sometimes do, and put his hand into this pile of Amendments and select one. We hope it will be the strongest of them, because I am sure the object we have in mind is as dear to his heart as it is to mine.

Sir S. Cripps: I am very glad to hear that Conservative fetes are charitable institutions; I thought they must have some reason for them, but I have not discovered what it was before. The right hon. Gentleman has always a most attractive way of putting forward propositions when he wants to get them accepted, which consists of making suggestions which would be quite ridiculous when made against any Minister, let alone Ministers of a Labour Government. Nevertheless, I do not want to be embittered by his partisanship; I want to do all I can to make this a good Bill. There are really two classes of Amendments to be dealt with, the first and the three following ones. As regards the first, which sets out that the number can be a maximum or minimum rather than a hard and fast figure, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me that in a Bill which is obviously experimental to a large extent it is very advisable to keep that latitude. One thinks, for instance, of some industry in which a particular section grows very much in importance, and one therefore wants to add a person representing that particular section. In that case one wants to keep some flexibility within a minimum and maximum number, it might be between 9 and 12 or whatever the figures may be, so that such a person can be added if

necessary without having to reconstitute the entire body. So much in regard tr., that.
When it comes to the other matter referred to in the Amendments in page 3, line 11, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is neither our desire nor our purpose that in those cases the industry itself should be out-weighted by independents. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has always been the practice in the working parties to keep two-thirds for representatives of the industry and not more than one-third for independent representatives. Therefore, I should be quite prepared to accept the principle of the last of the other three Amendments:
Provided always that the number of persons from categories (a) and (b) as defined in the preceding Subsection, shall, taken together, be such as to form a majority on the council.
That is perfectly in accordance with what we believe is right, and we are quite prepared to accept it. I would rather not accept it exactly in its present terms, however, but we will have it put in in proper form in another place, if that is convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lyttelton: In those circumstances, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his assurances; although the dish is to be cooked in his own special fashion, it is none the less digestible and acceptable, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out Subsection (7), and to insert:
(7) A development council order may provide for the payment to all or any of the independent members of the council, or to such other members as shall devote the whole of their time to the work of the council, of such remuneration, and to all the members of the councils of such allowances for expenses as may be determined by the Board or Minister concerned, and for the payment on the retirement or death of any members of the council who have devoted the whole of their time to the work of the council and as to whom it may be so determined to make such provision of such pensions and gratuities to them or to others by reference to their service as may be so determined.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the payments to members of development councils are contined to those who spend their whole time in the


work of the councils. It provides that expenses can be paid to all those serving upon them, but that neither payments nor pensions nor retiring gratuities should be paid to those who are not whole-time members. The objects of the Amendment are so simple that I do not think they require any elaboration from me, but I think it is a vicious idea that payments should be made, especially pensions and gratuities on retirement, to those who spend perhaps only a few minutes a month on the work of the development councils.

Sir S. Cripps: The object of preventing abuses is one which I share with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that the Amendment he proposes would really serve his purpose, while it would create a number of rather difficult anomalies. In the Subsection as it stands it is quite clear that the board, or the Minister concerned, has to give approval to payments of this kind. The allowances have to be determined either by the board or by the Minister. Therefore, the safeguard is the usual administrative safeguard of the responsibility of the Minister to Parliament. If we try to begin to lay down in the Bill itself provisions as to who may and who may not be paid, we get into inevitable difficulties. It may well be that there are people who do two or three days' work on one of these councils and who cannot afford to do it unless they get some remuneration, and mere expenses might not be sufficient to enable them to afford to do it, whether they happen to be on one side of the table or the other.
There is no particular reason why a person who is independent but who perhaps does only one day or less a week should be entitled to get these payments, whereas someone connected with the industry who may do more work is not entitled to them. It is quite an illogical division between the two categories of people. Payments should be made only on merit, whoever the person is, for work done, and that would be the principle we should apply again to the question of pensions or gratuities. There may be a man who serves for ten or twenty years doing one or two days a week and who belongs to the industry, and there may be another man, an independent, who started only last week. If the independent who

started last week is to be entitled to a pension or a gratuity whereas the man who served for 10 or 20 years doing a really good job is not entitled to either, it would be an extremely raw deal for people connected with the industry. All the plums would be going to the independent members, and that would be quite impracticable and quite unfair. It must be left to the discretion of the Minister and the Board to decide, where there is a genuine material contribution made to the work of the council, to permit payments to be made in those cases. There may be cases where a man has given a lot of work and perhaps jeopardised his other form of employment. It may be that there should be gratuities or pensions in isolated or particular cases. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is better to leave the matter at large as it is left in the Bill as drafted rather than try to lay down hard and fast rules which will produce anomalies and great unharminess as between the two parties.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. W. Shepherd: The President of the Board of Trade has stated the view of the Government on this Amendment. With some aspects of his remarks there will be agreement on this side of the House and possibly on his own. He is overstating the case in relation to the entitlement of a representative of the workers or the employers to a pension. I hope we shall be given some idea of the services which are involved to get a pension for a day a week or a day a month's service to one of these organisations. I do not believe that a man who gives part-time service is going to be a better part-time server by virtue of the fact that he will be granted a pension at the end of a certain time. The view I take is that these councils must attract men of public spirit, men whose desire it is to improve the lot of the industry and those in it. No attraction in the way of a pension or large-scale remuneration should be offered to them as an inducement, for that type of man would not be induced by offers of a pension for service of one or two days a month. I do not conceive any circumstances in which it would be desirable to offer a pension to a man giving service of a day a week or a day a month to an organisation. For that reason I regret that the President of the Board of Trade


has not seen fit to accept our Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions for furnishing development councils with information as to their industries.)

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11,at the end, to insert:
Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall authorise or be deemed to authorise a development council to require persons carrying on business in the industry to furnish any information with regard to a manufacturing process which the said persons carrying on a business in the industry claim to be a trade secret without direct authority so to do first having been obtained from the board or Minister concerned.
Let me begin by recognising that there is here a real difficulty with which the Government must be faced over this matter. There are trade secrets which it would be most undesirable to disclose, and companies and firms would resist most strongly any attempt to make those trade secrets known to their competitors. On the other hand, unless there is some attempt to define a trade secret, which I find very difficult to do, there would be the possibility of an element of obstructiveness frustrating the objects of this Bill. The objects of this Bill command general assent. We should be content if the Government accepted this Amendment, which states that a development council cannot require a company or firm to disclose something which they claim to be a trade secret unless it is referred to the Minister or the Board. Here is a ministerial function in which we should have confidence. This may look at first rather a weak Amendment, but there is a real difficulty. We wish to be reasonable and to understand that somebody who is obstructive might frustrate the whole objects of the Bill if stronger words, were used. This Amendment puts it fairly on the Minister to say whether the claim of this or that company as to a trade secret being disclosed is justified or not. I ask the Government either to accept the Amendment in this form, or else to accept the principle if they have better words. I believe these words are about as far as it is practicable to go while achieving the objects which I believe the President of the Board of Trade has just as strongly at heart as I have.

Sir S. Cripps: I quite appreciate that this is a matter which might cause some

concern among certain traders, and as we are most anxious to get the fullest cooperation in this from the traders I should be quite prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, subject to putting it in a slightly different form in another place. It will of course cause some little embarrassment if people try to use it too much, but we are so anxious that nobody should feel that they will suffer as a result of these councils that we will accept this principle.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade may find it possible to insert some definition of a trade secret. I appreciate that it is possible for some frivolous objections to be raised and if some formula could be agreed upon which would define within reasonable limits what a trade secret is, there would be some justification for the approach to the Minister.

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly do that.

Mr. Lyttelton: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for accepting the principle. I do not know whether it is possible to define a secret or whether once one has defined it, it remains a secret. That is a metaphysical question upon which I will not ask the House to follow me this afternoon. In the light of the President's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Levies by development councils.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(3) Before making such an order the Board or Minister concerned shall satisfy themselves or himself that the incidence of the charges as between different classes of undertakings in the industry will be in accordance with a fair principle.
This Amendment is moved as the result of the representations of the Opposition in Committee to make quite sure that the incidence of the charges which can be raised as between different classes of undertakings in an industry should be in accordance with a fair principle. It was thought that if charges were raised simply upon raw materials used, it might fall very unfairly on those firms when one a large amount of raw materials when one compares them with those firms which use only a comparatively small


amount of raw material but by a large amount of processing work give the materials a greater value. This Amendment will enable that danger to be obviated.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would like a little further elucidation from the President of the Board of Trade. I thank him for bringing forward this Amendment. The particular point which worries me is that we might have in an industry three or four companies of a progressive nature. I turn aside to say that "progressive" is not a word which should be used in the sense that the Paymaster-General used it earlier this afternoon. I took it from his remarks that those who agreed with the Government were progressive and those who did not, were not. That is a particularly repulsive form of definition to my hon. Friends. Leaving that aside, let us imagine that in an industry there are three or four, in a truer and wider sense, very progressive firms which spend large sums of money on the promotion of their exports and upon research and development. It is unfair that those firms should be required to pay a substantial levy to bring up the laggards who have neglected to gain the same standard of efficiency which these firms have achieved with their own money. I do not suppose that the Government would be particularly upset if it was unfair. They would say that the big people could probably afford it. I do not mind that so much as the fact that it might frustrate the object we all have in mind.
We must not get a feeling abroad in industry that if we spend as little and in as niggardly a fashion as possible on research and development for export promotion the Government will do the work for us by raising a levy upon all those who are engaged in the industry, or, in other words, to replace the private individual responsibility which they may feel now with a comfortable leaning back on a levy. If the President of the Board of Trade, by bringing in "a fair principle," is directing his mind to that particular subject, I welcome this Amendment all the more. I do not think, for example, that it would be a fair principle to assess a firm for purposes of a levy for research and development by the number of people it employs or by the number of square feet of floor space it

occupies in the process of manufacture. I am sure the House will forgive me if mention that if that way of doing it was applied to my own company, we should find ourselves providing very nearly the whole of the research and development for the electrical industry, which I do not think would be a fair principle.
Again, I see great difficulties in trying to get a definition which will enable a reasonable levy to be made, which does not put unnecessary restrictions on the amount and, at the same time, will not inflict the injustices and the disadvantages I mentioned. If the President can assure me that his phrase "a fair principle "—which seems to be a very ingenious one in this connection—is intended to protect people who spend large sums of money on export promotion and research work from having to pay large sums twice, then I should feel all the happier that this Amendment is being introduced. If the levies for research and development, and maybe for fundamental research, run into hundreds or even into a small number of thousands, there are few of the big companies which would have any objection to paying, but firms spending perhaps over half a million pounds a year on research would think it hard if they had to pay again in order to bring the laggards up to the state of efficiency which they have reached with their own money. I am only speaking on this Amendment to ask the President to give us a little further elucidation. If he can do that, I will accept it all the more readily; if he cannot, I still think the Amendment is an improvement to the Bill.

Sir S. Cripps: With the permission of the House, may I say that it is certainly not the object of this Amendment to penalise people who are doing a good job. It will be observed that the development council order will provide for the imposition of the levy, whatever it may be, by the development council with the approval of the Board. The matter will therefore have to be laid down in the order which comes before the House. It will have to be discussed with both sides of the industry beforehand, and one imagines that some sensible and fair method will be worked out and, with the addition of this Subsection, it is made the particular care of the Board or the Minister to satisfy himself that such a fair principle is


applied. It is quite impossible to say what that would be. There are certain industries where it is comparatively simple, like the cotton industry, where it has been accepted as a fair levy, but there are other industries, like the engineering industry, where it would be extremely difficult to work out a fair levy. Therefore that will be largely for the industry to do, and if they desire to have such a levy raised, I think they will be able to devise some method which will broadly meet the desires and needs of the industries. The expression "in accordance with a fair principle" is purposely put in to cover everybody, and not merely to cover one particular section. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matters he has in mind, in addition to others, will be borne in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on disclosure of information.)

5.45 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, after "proceedings," to insert:
(whether civil or criminal, and.
This and the next Amendment on the Order Paper run together on exactly the same lines as that which was introduced into the Statistics of Trade Bill, whereby material obtained as a result of the operations of this Bill will be usable for proceedings under the Bill and not for other proceedings. The Amendment was asked for during the Committee stage, we introduced it into the other Bill, and now we are introducing it into this one.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I want to thank the President for introducing these words which I asked for on the Committee stage. I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not taken the opportunity of inserting these words in view of the fact that he had done so in a previous Bill, and it was only at the last moment that I discovered they had not been inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 29, leave out from "Act," to second "or," in line 30.—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Reports, and accounts, of development councils.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out from "year," to "and," in line 11.
This Amendment goes with the one in my name to line 13. They are intended to cover the point in an Amendment to line 11 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The object of these two Amendments is, first, that the statement of accounts shall be in a form approved by the Board or Minister, and also in a form which conforms with the best commercial standards; second, that the statement of accounts shall show the total remuneration and allowances paid during the year to members of the council. Those are two matters which, on the Committee stage, I understand, it was desired to have inserted, and we are quite prepared to insert them in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 13, at the end, insert:
(3) The statement of accounts shall be in such form as the Board or Minister concerned may direct, being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards, and the statement shall show the total of remuneration and allowances paid during the year to members of the council."—(Sir S. cripps.)

CLAUSE 9.—(Levies for certain purposes for industries for which there is no development council.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(2) Before making an order imposing charges under this section the authority making the order shall satisfy themselves or himself that the incidence of the charges as between different classes of undertakings in the industry will be in accordance with a fair principle.
This is really consequential upon the Amendment made in the earlier Clause, and applies to the case where levies can be raised without the intervention of a council. The same provision is made that they shall be judged by the authority making the order, the Minister or the Board as the case may be, and that they shall impose charges on different classes of undertakings in accordance with a fair principle.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power to define activities to be treated as comprised in an industry.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, to leave out Clause 14.
This is consequential upon the earlier new Clause which was introduced, and


cuts out Clause 14, which gives the definition bf "industry," in favour of the new definition.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Short title.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, after "Organisation," to insert "and Development."
This Amendment arises out of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) in Standing Committee to alter the title of the Bill from "Industrial Organisation" to something which included the term "Development." Therefore we propose to add the words "and Development" so that it will read the "Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1937."

Mr. W. Shepherd: I rise to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) is very indebted to the President for the alteration of the Title of the Bill. Unfortunately, he is away performing a semi-official duty in Geneva, and consequently I have the task of thanking the President though I do it less charmingly than my hon. Friend would.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Functions which may be assigned to development councils.)

Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, at the end, to insert:
21. Promoting the establishment of machinery for securing more effective consultation between managers and administrative, technical and production personnel in matters affecting the better organisation of production and the welfare of persons employed in the industry.
This Amendment seeks to achieve the same objective as one which was put down on the Committee stage, and which the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking to consider. I understand that it has not been found possible for the Government to incorporate in the functions described in the First Schedule, a function covering the point raised in this Amendment, and for that reason it has been put down again. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that development councils shall encourage the formation of what are generally known, by a generic term, as joint production committees. While it is quite clear that the

precise form and method of operation of joint production committees must be a matter for discussion between representatives of employers and workers, it is also desirable in the view of those supporting the Amendment that the development council as such should have placed upon it the responsibility of encouraging the formation of joint production committees and their general adoption throughout the industries with which they are concerned.
Some of us regard this as a very important addition to the functions of development councils, because here is an opportunity of getting the principle of cooperation between the two sides of industry down to the roots of industry itself. It is not going to be very much use if all the co-operation is at the top, and there is no reflection of that co-operation where production actually takes place. During the war we had experience of the working of joint production committees. Some worked extremely well, while I am afraid others had very little to do with production. It is important that when joint production committees are being fostered, care should be taken that what is fostered is a form of co-operation which is concerned, not merely with petty grievances in industrial establishments, but with the actual processes and organisations of production.
We are concerned with the question of whether the workers are to have a real voice in the organisation of production. Is the lip service which is being paid today to the right of the workers to have a say in the running of their industries to be translated into reality? By giving this official sanction in the Bill to the conception of the need for, and the value of, joint production committees, we shall be taking a long step forward towards overcoming the resistance of some of those backward employers who still show very little enthusiasm for promoting such organisations. It is perfectly true, as may be said by the Minister in reply, that discussions are proceeding at present between the two sides of the industry on this matter. But it is also true that a good deal of reluctance, to say the least, is being shown by some sections of employers—reluctance even to encourage the formation of joint production committees. With a view to overcoming that reluctance, and making it clear that the formation of joint production committees is


regarded by the Government and should be regarded by the development councils as an essential part of the promotion of co-operative planning development of industry, this Amendment has been put down.

Mr. Edelman: I beg to second the Amendment.
The question of joint production committees goes to the very root of industrial democracy. During the war they undeniably had a very considerable psychological effect which in turn had the result of stimulating production. I recall how my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was then Minister of Aircraft Production, was actively concerned in promoting joint production committees in factories. I remember attending a meeting in a factory when he said that the function of these cornmittees was not to usurp the function of management but to act in a consultative capacity. It should be stressed today that so long as these committees function in a consultative capacity, they have as useful a task to perform in peace as they had during the war. The joint production committees should be to the development council what a local authority is to Parliament—a manifestation locally of the all-over industrial democracy which is our aim. For that reason I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not, by leaving out joint production committees from the schedule of functions of the development councils, perpetuate a divorce between the joint production committees and the development council. There seems a direct and natural link between these committees and development councils.
At present the Minister of Labour is most directly concerned with the joint production committees, both from the employers' side and the workers'. But there has lately grown up a feeling among employers and officials that the joint production committee is neither necessary nor even desirable, but is rather a luxury or a nuisance. That attitude has gained considerable ground. If my right hon. and learned Friend can include joint production committees within the scope of the interests of development councils he will do a great deal to renew the efficiency of this most valuable instrument of industrial consultation. Only yesterday in my constituency I was present at a meet-

ing of a joint industrial committee of one of the biggest aircraft firms in the country. The stimulus to production as initiated by that joint production committee was something which, if widespread throughout the country, would cause an immediate and considerable rise in output.
It is quite certain that the joint production committee has a definite value which my right hon. and learned Friend would amplify if he would enlarge the functions of the development councils to cover the workings of those most important organs of industrial co-operation.

6.0 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that anyone will accuse me of lack of interest in joint production committees of all kinds, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who, with me, did a great deal during the war to try to stimulate the setting up of these bodies. However, I do not think that this is an appropriate place to deal with them in order to give the maximum encouragement possible to the propagation of the idea. The House will remember that the origin of joint production committees was an agreement between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Employers Federation, and they still continue in the engineering industry to be based upon that agreement, which lays down their constitution and sphere of operations. As a result of the Government's desire that a much fuller use should be made of this device for the purpose of stimulating production, the matter has been discussed, as has been said, quite recently in the National Joint Advisory Council, under the aegis of the Minister of Labour, with a view to seeing if something could not be done on both sides of industry to stimulate the formation of joint production committees. Agreement, has been arrived at in that body with a view to the steps that should be taken.
That is a different chain of responsibility to that of the development councils, and we believe that if we were to insert this Amendment it would not encourage the setting up of joint production committees but would rather discourage those who at present are, we hope, actively engaged in trying to spread the area of this type of organisation. So far as regional matters are concerned, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) has mentioned,


there is, of course, a direct link between joint production committees, district committees and regional boards of industry, and we do not want to disturb that link. Many of these matters can be dealt with better on a regional basis than on an industrial basis, that is, on the basis of a particular industry spread over a great many regions of the country. We believe, therefore, that in furthering the desire, which we share with my hon. Friend, to do all we can to stimulate the movement towards the setting up and the active use of joint production committees, we shall be doing a greater service by not including this matter in the duties of development councils, but by leaving if to be dealt with by the National Joint Advisory Council and the various bodies I have mentioned, and leaving with them the responsibility for stimulating this movement.
If we were to divide that responsibility the result might be that it would be carried out by neither body, and it might lead to disputes as to which was the proper body to carry it on. It is quite clearly a border-line case. The development councils will not be charged with matters concerning wages or conditions of work. It might be said that this is an area into which they could penetrate, or it might be said that this is an area which should go with wages and conditions of work. As it has hitherto been organised it has gone with wages and conditions of work, and is being so dealt with at the present time. We feel it is wiser to leave that line of responsibility where it is rather than try to mingle with it another line of responsibility. I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friends will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Shackleton: The President of the Board of Trade has excelled himself in the almost legalistic quality of that reply. I agree with him that there can be no doubt in this House as to the value of joint production committees, but I do not think that that is the issue, nor do I think we need to debate that. Hon. Members of the party opposite, in the Tory "Industrial Charter," have themselves emphasised the need for joint production committees. The question is whether development councils shall be used as an instrument of propaganda for promoting the setting up of joint pro-

duction machinery. I feel it is a rather hair splitting argument that we cannot divide responsibility in this matter. Surely, in democratic planning, which are the words which are now rather popular in describing this kind of legislation, it is essential in a matter of this sort to operate through the agencies that are available. We are not asking that development councils should impose joint production machinery. They are not in a position to do so. We are asking that they should supplement the action of the National Joint Advisory Council by putting out propaganda, by providing opportunities for employers and employed to understand the advantages of joint production machinery. The matter is one of such vast importance, and the whole situation of the nation industrially is so urgent that I urge the President of the Board of Trade at least to consider some way in which development councils can be used as an additional channel through which propaganda for the setting up of joint production machinery can be made. It is a delicate matter, but I feel that we are treading almost too delicately. I do not think that we need to imitate Agag to that extent in a matter on which the future prosperity of the nation depends.

Mr. Sparks: We need to lye very careful that we do not impinge upon the policies with which the trade union organisations are concerned in this matter. This is not mainly a political question; it is largely an industrial question, with which the trade unions are intimately concerned. The President of the Board of Trade himself told us just now that the joint production committee is the result of an agreement between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Employers' Federation. I believe that joint production machinery must be evolved through that channel. Efforts are being made by many trade unions to evolve an organisation adaptable to their own industries and peculiarities of those industries, because not every industry to be covered by a development council is quite in the same category as the engineering industry. I think a case can be made out by the President of the Board of Trade for rejecting this Amendment which seeks to impose upon development councils the obligation to carry out what is essentially an industrial purpose and function, in which the trade unions are closely concerned.
I agree, as I think every hon. Member agrees, on the importance which joint production committees can achieve throughout the length and breadth of our industrial undertakings in this country. If we leave the matter where it is, with the trade unions and the employers' organisations, it will be the most satisfactory way to deal with the Matter. I can see all sorts of complications arising, if development councils are charged with this job. Some trade unions and some employers might consider it an interference in matters which are linked with wages and conditions. We should leave well alone, and not try to duplicate the machinery which already exists, and the avenues which already remain open, for developing this most valuable incentive in industry—not in one kind of industry but all kinds, to bring workers and management together, with a view to stimulating and encouraging productivity throughout their undertakings.

Mr. Warbey: I should like to make it clear that this Amendment has not been put down without some discussion with persons who are intimately concerned with the trade union movement. I am assured that some trade unions are very anxious that some kind of semi-official approval should be given to the formation of joint production committees. I appreciate the difficulty of the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the negotiations now taking place. I wonder whether he would be prepared to meet us half way by agreeing that the provisions of Clause 1 (4) might be extended at a later stage to cover this matter. Subsection (4) provides that
A development council order may provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be necessary or expedient to provide.
Among the functions mentioned in the First Schedule is the
Promoting or undertaking inquiry as to materials and equipment and as to methods of production, management and labour utilisation …
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the encouragement of joint production committees might be regarded as a function ancillary to those mentioned? If he would undertake to consider putting into future development council orders, a provision covering the encouragement of joint production committees, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir S. Cripps: It would hardly be honest if I were to promise to extend Subsection (4) to cover this specific point. Hon. Members will have it in mind that there is nothing to stop a development council interesting itself in this subject The question we are debating is whether it should be given them as a specific job. If both sides on the development council want to encourage joint production committees, there is nothing on earth to stop them. No doubt they could do very useful work. But once one assigned this job to them, then the other bodies now dealing with it would think it was no longer their job, and we should get a complete lack of drive, as the points where we want it today. We do not want to trespass in any way on the work which we hope will be done by the other bodies. We do not want to put this in as a specific job for the development councils, but there is nothing to stop them from taking an interest in it, and in doing all they can to help.

Amendment negatived.

6.15 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This Bill has had a smooth and rapid passage through the House because I think that, broadly speaking, its principles are in accordance with what hon. Members on all sides would like to see carried out. It arises very largely out of the recommendations made by a number of working parties on the method that should be adopted, for the development and organisation of the various industries into which they have been making inquiry. The Bills lays down a procedure whereby, subject to the future consent of Parliament, councils can be set up for various industries, with largely advisory functions and composed of representatives of both sides of industry, together with such independent persons as are thought desirable in any particular case.
The object is to get one responsible body of persons who can speak for all interests in the industry with a single voice and who, in their considerations of the interests of the industry, will have in mind as well, the interests of the nation and of the consumers of the industry's products. It is the intention of the Government to give great weight to the recommendations of these bodies when they


are set up, and to use them in a large degree for that liaison with industry which is now such an essential part of any national planning or the execution of any plan which is made. As I stated on an earlier occasion we do not wish to make this a rigid or inflexible form of procedure. Our object is to assist industry in every way we can. That is why the Bill has been drawn in a permissive form, to enable us to have plenty of latitude and variety of form. What is suitable and desirable for one industry is not necessarily desirable or suitable for another. Therefore, we do not intend to enforce this pattern rigidly upon all industry. We hope and expect that most important industries will be willing to conform, to some extent, to the pattern here laid down.
In deciding which industries are suitable for the setting up of development councils under the Bill, we shall take into account the views of both sides of industry, though perhaps with a bias in favour of setting up a development council where the two sides may differ in their opinions. We hope that by negotiation with both sides, we shall reach a measure of agreement on the precise form of the council and what its functions should be. The functions set out in the Schedule which can be conferred upon the councils cover a very wide range. We do not expect that all of them will necessarily be appropriate in every case. Indeed, whatever steps we now take must be considered as in the nature of experimental steps. We must be prepared to alter and adjust the functions whenever it appears advisable so to do.
As the House knows, Orders setting up a council will require an affirmative Resolution. As the matter is experimental and as I am anxious to get the best possible results, I propose in the initial cases, to take the somewhat exceptional step of publishing, in advance, a summary of what we propose should be inserted in the Order before it is made, so that there will be time and opportunity for interested persons to let me have their views upon it which can then be considered before the Order is passed. I hope that that procedure will assist in getting the cooperation not only of those in the industry but of interested Members of Parliament as well. I should like to emphasise the necessity for the fullest consultation with industry upon all these matters because

the success of the councils will, of course, depend very largely upon the degree of co-operation given by both sides of industry. I hope that neither side of industry will be nervous or anxious as to the development and the outcome of the setting up of development councils. They have the knowledge that what they are being asked to embark upon is an experiment which the working parties, on which they have been well represented, and others who have studied the situation, consider to be a hopeful approach to the coordination of private enterprise industries with the planning and control necessary for organising the national economy. We want to give both sides of industry the fullest opportunity of influencing Government action in a sense favourable to their own efficiency, and to their maximum contribution to the nation's welfare; and we believe that the devices laid down in this Bill represent the best way of accomplishing that objective.
Perhaps I should interpolate a word or two on joint consultations, the subject which was raised on the last Amendment discussed during the Report stage. The Government are convinced that one of the most important factors in obtaining full production, and, therefore, full employment, is the most complete system of joint consultation between workers and employers at every level. It must be at every level if it is to be successful. During the war, we established joint consultation to a degree never known before. There was the National Joint Advisory Council, on matters of wages and conditions of working; there was the National Production Advisory Committee on Industry, on matters of production, and, now, there is the Joint Planning Board, to cover the top levels of industry and the trade unions. There were also the Engineering Advisory Council, the Shipbuilding Advisory Council, the Cotton Board, the joint Industrial Councils and other bodies dealing with consultations for particular industries. It is at this level that the new councils, under the present Bill, will fill a gap which at present is very visible. In addition to the top level central bodies which I have mentioned, joint consultation on joint production matters takes place regionally in the regional boards and in the district committees, where these exist. Indeed, it is our desire that the whole country shall be covered adequately by district committees as soon as possible,


but it is essential that all this high level joint consultation should be backed up by joint consultation in the factory and the particular units of production in such a way as to penetrate right down to the floor of every shop.
We are building a structure of joint consultation which depends for its ultimate efficacy upon its completeness. It must become an integrated scheme, in which every branch and unit of production shall be able to contribute its full value. That is why I attach particular importance to this Bill, which enables us to fill up one of the most important gaps in the present organisation of industry upon a consultative basis. I hope that all those concerned will appreciate its objective, and do their utmost to help to make that success of the councils which we seek today. Broadly, the principles which it seeks to establish are those which we have been able to secure from consultation with employers and workers. I believe that this Bill is an important contribution to the efficiency and productiveness of our private enterprise industry, and I therefore ask the House to give it a Third Reading.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: My gratification in seeing the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his place to move the Third Reading of this Bill is somewhat marred by the fact that today is the 400th anniversary of the foundation of Trinity College, Cambridge, to which I am attached by long ties of tradition and affection. I entirely absolve the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a Wykehamist and late Rector of Aberdeen University, from any responsibility in the matter but I must say that I should have found it more pleasurable, and he may think more profitable, if I had spent this afternoon on the banks of the Cam. Having said that, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having accepted, in a spirit of compromise, many of the Amendments which we have put on the Order Paper.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very agreeable speech. I found it difficult to follow because it was couched in those emollient terms that might mean anything or nothing. The reason which he advanced for this enabling type of legislation, which covers almost everything, was that we must maintain

flexibility. It would not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, be the aim of the Government to enforce this in every case, because the provisions of the Bill were not appropriate in every case. It is very agreeable to us to hear that, but, unfortunately, once we take this blunderbuss power and shoot into the air, the slugs are often liable to land in the pants of those for whom they were not originally intended.
Our main objection to this Bill, with the main purpose of which we are in entire sympathy, is that it is too wide, and gives to Ministers powers which can be extended in almost every direction. It is not much consolation to hear that these very wide powers arc taken because of the desire to have flexibility. That is really a very disingenuous argument. If the House wishes to have an example, let us look at Clause 1 (4):
A development council order may provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be necessary or expedient to provide.
With the Parliamentary draftsmen so hard worked, we understand why that sort of thing is put in. It just enables the Minister to include anything regarded as expedient in a development council order. I think these are very grave defects. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession he has made regarding the independent members. I think there were grave defects in the Bill as it stood previously. It would have enabled any Government to pack the development councils with independent members, without going to either side of industry, either singly or in combination, and I am particularly gratified that he has met us on that point. He has met us on another point—the matter of the disclosure of the remuneration to be given to the independent members. Until today, I have been making some rather sour criticisms of the Board of Trade, on the ground that one section was rather anxious to follow the recommendations of the Cohen Report in regard to the remuneration to be paid to directors during the time they held office and making statutory the disclosure of any emoluments, or pensions which they might afterwards receive. It was a little curious to us to see that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hand was doing was unknown to his left, because, in drafting this Bill,


the Board of Trade never provided for the disclosure of the remuneration to be given to the independent persons. He has now met that by seeking, in the modern jargon, to secure the proper liaison between right and left. He now tries to bring this matter, under this Bill, up to the standard of the best commercial practice. I hope that the powers taken under this Bill are not going to be used in competing for the shrinking supply of country houses, and that any that are left over by the National Coal Board will not be snatched up by development councils. I trust that none will be used for keeping the new rich in comfort, while cluttering up industry with a great mass of paper which can only be used at the expense of the free Press.
However, I am here on this hot afternoon in an attitude of blessing rather than of cursing, and my anxieties are somewhat allayed by the number of Amendments which the Government have accepted. I should have been glad if they had given us something further on the principle of consultation, but at least we have had some very solemn assurances—although, I admit, they are not expressed in the Statute—about the nature of these consultations. I should also have been glad if the Government had accepted the Amendment which sought to exclude from Clause z conditions of employment and wages. Later in the Bill there, is an Amendment which excludes wages and working conditions from any amendment to a development council order. In discussing this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the reason why it was not included in Clause 1, was because the Schedule specifically excluded wages and working conditions. That, I feel, is not quite accurate. Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule says that the functions which may be assigned to development councils are:
Promoting or undertaking inquiry as to materials and equipment and as to the methods of production, management and labour utilization…
Paragraph 9 says:
Promoting the adoption of measures for securing safer and better working conditions…
Paragraph 11 says:
Promoting or undertaking arrangement, for encouraging the entry of persons into the industry.

Paragraph 15 says:
Promoting the development of export trade, including promoting or undertaking arrangements for publicity overseas.
I find great difficulty in entering into a discussion on any of these subjects without bringing wages and working conditions into it. I should have preferred its specific inclusion in Clause I rather than to be told, by means of assurances, that these matters are not to come within the purview of development councils. I am genuinely anxious not to see the voluntary machinery for negotiating wages and working conditions. overlaid or overlapped in any way by statutory bodies. We in industry take a pride in the way these voluntary bodies have worked. By and large, they have worked greatly to the advantage of industry as a whole, and I recoil from the idea of statutory bodies being introduced which would overlap these functions. I must say frankly to the House that I am somewhat relieved 1?y the assurances which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given to the effect that there is no intention of abrogating those functions. I was a little surprised at one or two hon. Members, who are trade unionists, adopting an almost menacing attitude during the Committee stage when they said that there was no need to worry about the trade unions because they would look after. themselves. But once a law is passed by this House, even the trade unions are expected to obey it. Apart from the assurances which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us, there are many instances where, if the provisions of this Bill are loosely applied, the development councils might abrogate the functions of the voluntary negotiating bodies.
I am very grateful for the "fair principle" Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced, and for the subsequent explanation which he gave. That relieves another anxiety, and is a great improvement to the Bill. If it is properly administered, more good than harm is likely to come out of it. But I cannot help regretting the handing over of such wide powers to eight separate Ministers. The First Schedule is very wide indeed and there is a great danger of duplication and overlapping. I still think it would have been better to have had ad hoc legislation which would deal with groups of industries or even with


individual industries. I also think it would have been better to have had the unusual experience of having not only a competent Minister—which, in this instance, we have—but also a competent Measure, designed and defined to fulfil this or that object, instead of a blunderbuss Measure. If the levies are open to considerable objection, these represent the disadvantages of trying, in one Bill, to cover such a complex field. But we shall not divide against the Third Reading of the Bill because we want it to have the largest measure of support and the best chance of success, as its objects are those with which we all agree.
I only hope that we may not live to regret the decision. Administration is not the Government's forte. Development councils are really very much wanted inside the Government itself, and I suggest, in a spirit of great seriousness, that the Government might consider the setting up of a development council in an endeavour to attain a greater measure of efficiency and co-ordination in Government Departments. In their own language, those who live in vitreous mansions should not be lithobolic, or, in plain English, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Under this Bill, the Government have very great powers for throwing stones, and all the gracious speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not detract from the plain fact that they have the right to throw a great many stones through other people's windows. It would be much better if they concentrated their attention more upon their own affairs than upon those of other people. As I have said on more than one occasion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is quite possible that those who have devoted their lives to these industries may know more about them than his own Department or even himself. I hope that this Bill will be administered in a way which will be helpful, and which will, as far as possible, release 'individual genius and enterprise, and that private enterprise industries will not become further victims to the increasing bureaucracy.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be unduly perturbed by the rather small stones which the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) concealed in

the bouquets which he flung across the Floor of the House today. Throughout the different stages of this Bill—Second Reading, the Report stage, and the present stage—we have had what I believe the right hon. Member for Aldershot once described upstairs, as "quite a happy family party." I can well appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, not very greatly alarmed by the provisions of this Bill. It is, indeed, rather a modest Bill which, no doubt, in course of time will do a fair amount of good, but some of us on this side of the House, while welcoming the Bill as a step forward, have been a little disappointed to find that it has not contained within it the fulfilment of the promises which the President of the Board of Trade himself gave, particularly in his speech this afternoon. He did say, I think, that it was to be regarded as establishing machinery for the co-ordination of the private enterprise industries with national planning. In other words, it was to be a link in the chain of economic planning machinery which we arc now seeking to build up in this country.
Same of us, in Committee and subsequently, have tried to define a little more precisely;the links between the proposed development councils, the Government Departments and the central economic planning machinery. I am not in the happy position of the right hon. Member for Aldershot in being able to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for accepting Amendments, and I must say that I had hoped to have, especially at this stage, a rather clearer picture of how the Government themselves envisage the way in which these development councils will work and the way in which they will play their effective part in our overall planning machinery. What is to be the means of co-ordination between the central Departments and the development councils? We have been given no clear picture of that at any stage in this Bill.
I put this question to the Minister: Are the development councils to be regarded as the main means by which the private sector of industry is integrated into the overall national planning machinery? What is to be the scope of the development councils? Is it intended that they shall be extended as widely as possible in order to cover, in course of time, all the main sections of private industry? Is it


intended, for example, that they should cover the very important field of the modern engineering industries—the motor car, precision instrument, electrical equipment and machine tool industries, and other modern industries such as the chemical industry, on which a great deal of the economic future of this country will depend, including very much of the expansion of our export trade which is vital to our success in the future? Are development councils going to be established for these industries, and are these industries, through the development councils, to be properly integrated with the national plan? How is the attention of development councils going to be drawn to the requirements of the national plan? If the central planning office lays down certain targets—production, investment, manpower and export targets—how are we to see that each individual industry is playing its part in the realisation of these targets? Are the development councils going to be used for that purpose, and if so how?
In Committee, some of us proposed Amendments by which this integration could take place. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that, in his view, the function contained in paragraph 19 of the First Schedule would cover the coordination between the development councils and the Ministries concerned. That paragraph says that the development councils shall have the function of
advising on any matters relating to the industry (other than remuneration or conditions of employment) as to which the Board or Minister concerned may request the council to advise …
Will that function be the main means of contact between the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply and the individual industry? Will it be the means of contact between the Lord President of the Council, or the Postmaster-General, or whoever is responsible for our central economic planning, and the individual industries? How are these things going to be worked out in fact? Some of us are really concerned about that matter. In other words, is this Bill really an instalment of Socialist economic planning, or is it merely an example of that pseudo democratic planning where certain vague and general targets are set by the Government, and private industry is left to get on in its

own way and with its own sweet will, with the hope and prayer that it will fulfil what is required of it? That is the kind of thing that some of us would like to know before we part with this Bill.

6.47 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: We have had this afternoon the Third Reading of this Bill advocated by the President of the Board of Trade with all that persuasiveness of manner which he possesses, perhaps, to a greater degree than anyone else on the Government Front Bench. Listening to his advocacy of the Bill, it would be difficult for us to have any fears at all about its future success. One thing I was particularly pleased to hear the President of the Board of Trade say was that it was his intention to publish an advance copy of any proposed order which he might bring to the House, to give industry an opportunity of considering its contents. That is an extremely valuable concession, and I am sure that industry will appreciate it very much.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this Bill being flexible and experimental, as indeed it must be. I think that largely answers the numerous questions that have been addressed by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). However, it is not for me to say how he should be answered; I leave it to much more capable hands on the other side of the House. I agree most heartily with the President of the Board of Trade when he says that if this Bill is to be a success, co-operation of the most friendly type is essential, not only between employer and worker but also with the Government as the third partner, because, whether we like it or not, we are bound to look forward to the future when there will be a closer partnership between the Government, employers and employed. It is recognised that there cannot be trade expansion and full employment in the world unless many governments co-operate with each other. One country alone cannot do it. For that reason alone, there must be a partnership in the right way between the Government and industry, greater than there has been in the past. Therefore, co-operation between all three partners is absolutely essential if we are to bring about our industrial recovery.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the value he attached to


what he called "joint consultation at every stage." That moans, from the board-room and management down to the shop floor. I am a believer in consultation, and one of those employers who practise it. But I would make this reservation. I would say that joint consultation, if it is to be introduced and become effective, must be pursued cautiously, because what may be practicable and beneficial in one works, and very suitable for that works, may be very difficult to apply in another. Therefore, in these matters, one has to feel one's way, and not try to act too precipitately. I think one of the important hopes for our industrial recovery will lie in securing, not so much the interference of the Government, but better relationships between employers and employed, between management and men. There is room for greater understanding in many industries than exists today, and I am quite sure much can thus be brought about. I take every opportunity myself, when I meet employers in every part of the country, of emphasising the tremendous chances there are if only time and trouble are taken in calling the employees together and in explaining to them such things as, why that policy is being changed, or that design is being modified, or why, for a few weeks, the change Will mean less work for that shop, but that, in four or five months' time, that shop will be busier than ever before; if there are intelligent questions from the men, and satisfactory answers given, perhaps, to a man who has great influence among his fellow work-people. If such a man says, "I am entirely satisfied with the explanation that you have given," the effect among his fellow workers will be far greater, perhaps, than that of anything said on the part of the management. Therefore, I am a great believer in joint consultations, provided that they are proceeded with cautiously, until there is an atmosphere of trust between one side and the other; so that the consultations are not merely idle talks, but talks for the benefit of masters and employed, and so for the benefit of the nation.
I must confess that industry—at least, those industries That I know—has been very nervous since this Bill was first printed. I have here in my hand a batch of communications from industrialists all over the country expressing their anxiety as to how the Government propose to

operate this Bill. I am satisfied myself that everything will depend upon how wisely and how reasonably the Government exercise the powers which they will get when this Bill reaches the Statute Book. If the Government act reasonably. and well, I think this Bill will prove, in time, to be of great benefit to our industrial prosperity. On the other hand, if it is not exercised reasonably, wisely and well, then the reverse results will follow.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I welcome the opportunity to wish this Bill a speedy passage into operation, so that the economic life of the country may have the benefit of its provisions. For the last couple of years we have had working parties in several of our important industries, not least among them the industry with which I am closely connected, the pottery industry. I know that there is a long felt desire that some of the excellent advice that has been given by those working parties should be implemented at an early date. It was most encouraging and illuminating to hear the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), who occupies so very distinguished a position in the world of business and commerce, say he recognises that today the Government have to play an increasing part in the economic life of the country. But he went on to produce a sheaf of papers which expressed the apprehension of his colleagues in the country. I think the Opposition do well to welcome this Bill, because some of us feel that it might perpetuate the state of private enterprise in some industries too long. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) is satisfied or not in his queries, whether the industries left under private enterprise will help themselves, or whether this is the first measure of socialised planning, there is much to be said for what it intends to do.
I do not know and I cannot say for certain, but I hope this Government will remain sufficiently long to extend their influence in industry, and I believe they can rightly do so for many considerations. We must recognise that for toe long many of our industries have been in a condition of backwardness, and in a condition which has called for very radical attention and reorganisation. If this Bill has the effect of bringing the


workers and the employers and the independent members together it will do good. I do not share the apprehensions about the independent members which were expressed in the Committee, because I believe that a new slant brought from outside an industry—from the engineering, distributive, or design points of view—may be useful. If these joint interests can be brought together, I believe much good can be done, with the assistance of the Government, which will be valuable in improving the economic life of this country, which has to be improved it we are going to take our place in the economy of the world as one of the great trading nations. It would not be appropriate at this stage to discuss the relative prospects of this country vis-a-vis America or some of the other trading competitors who are likely to emerge in the future, but it goes without saying, I think, that we have to put our own house in order; and I believe this Bill does much to that end.
I do not share the apprehension which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) seemed to have in his mind in the Committee and in the speech he made a few minutes ago in regard to the abrogation of functions from the authorised, organised trade unions, on the one hand, and the employers on the other hand, when matters relating to pay and conditions of employment are under consideration. I will agree that some of the functions as outlined in the First Schedule are rather indefinite, but they must be indefinite for the very good reasons which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, unlike his right hon. Friend, brought out—that is to say, that this is an enabling Bill; that, instead of having a Bill to implement every working party's report and for every industry, here we have a Bill which—in general terms, and only general terms—can be adapted to the particular needs of an industry or an occasion. I take it that as we consider the various industries there will be a deletion or extension of the functions set out; and therefore, quite rightly, matters incidental and supplementary to the functions set out in the Schedule could fall within the power of the Minister and be incorporated in the Order.
I am glad that provision is made for research in industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) is not here at the moment. He could speak

with greater authority on this matter. Fundamental research, as distinct from that research which individual manufacturers have to consider—and have considered in times gone by with good results—will be one of the considerations of the development councils under this cooperative organisation, and I believe great good can emerge. In matters relating not only to the scientific composition of the article, but to questions such as the., marketing and distribution of the product, much useful service will be done by this Bill. Quite obviously, the Bill could not cover all the problems which are likely to arise in the several industries. In the pottery industry, of which I have some knowledge, it is important that attention should be given to the local by-laws; for example, in reference to the type of building which is erected, because the type of building has such a great effect upon the health, and so on, of the occupants. It might also be felt quite competent to include matters such as Income Tax relief at a later stage, and certainly factory regulations of all kinds. We should not regard consideration of these things by a development council as transgressing upon the ground previously occupied by some other unit such as the trade unions. We should feel that we here have matters of mutual interest which could be helpful to all engaged in the industry. For that reason, I am glad the Bill is sufficiently flexible to permit of all those things being done in the future.
In my view, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whose absence today we all regret, who dealt with this Bill in. Committee, did a good job of work. There was good feeling in the Committee, and I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House will feel that the good industrialists will have a measure of protection in this Bill against the poor industrialists. Many good industrialists were prepared to pay decent wages and to provide good conditions for their workers, but they were unfairly handicapped because some of the less well-disposed people in the industry were not prepared to foot the bill and 'provide decent conditions. Because of that I believe the more enlightened sections of industry will welcome the Bill. I wish the Bill a happy landing, and hope that we shall feel the effects of it in industry without too much delay, and particularly in my own industry in


which a working party was set up in October, 1945, and in respect of which we believe a good job of work was done. Many manufacturers were suspicious of the working parties when they were mentioned. The name of my right hon. and learned Friend was looked at askance, but when he came down with his charms, and what my hon. Friend described as his emollient words, they were persuaded, and in the end they almost stayed to cheer. When the working party reports were made public the former impression of so-called Government interference was changed completely. I think that has been a common experience, wherever working party reports have appeared, and I believe that will be the experience under this Government when this Bill becomes fully operative.

7.5 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I take particular interest in this Bill, because during the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade referred, so rightly, to the Cotton Board; he suggested that because the Cotton Board had been a success it might be used for many other industries, and that this Bill was largely based on that idea. Before the Cotton Board was brought into being there was considerable discussion in the industry as to whether it would be advisable for them to have it. I took part in that discussion and heard a great many of the criticisms at that time. I was a member of the Cotton Board for a time and naturally saw a great deal of its inner workings. I think that on the whole it has done a fine job of work; I would, however, point out one difference between the Cotton Board in its present set-up and the proposed new councils. The Cotton Board is made up of people representing different interests; that is to say, people who are experts in different jobs, with an independent chairman. In this case three groups of people will be set up: those representing employers, employees, and independent members, the chairman being one of the independent members.
I dislike the introduction of a substantial number of independent members. I know they have been recommended by different working parties, but that does not convince me that they will be really useful on these councils. In my experience of the Cotton Board, representing a very large industry composed of many different

industries, I was astonished at the ignorance of one part of the industry concerning different sections of that industry. For instance, the spinner knew nothing in many cases of the cloth merchant and his problems; the worker knew nothing of the difficulties and problems of the different employers. More than once I was astounded at that complete ignorance, and on one occasion I went to great trouble to collect detailed costs to prove to a friend of mine, who was representing the labour side, that profits were nothing like as much in a particular section as he—and, for that matter, many other people —had thought. That is the sort of ignorance which probably people outside the industry do not realise exists. 'I was astonished to find that ignorance, not only in one direction but in different directions, and it would be for the good of the industry as a whole, and everybody engaged in it, that the mutual suspicion and distrust created by that ignorance should be removed as quickly as possible.
I must confess that I dislike certain aspects of this Bill. I dislike having one large enabling Bill by which these industrial councils can be imposed comparatively easily. I think it is unnecessary that eight different Ministers should have this power. Most of the rest of this week will be taken up by the Minister of Agriculture with a most important Agriculture Bill, which will give him great powers in his particular industry. I do not see that it has been proven to be at all necessary for all the Ministers mentioned in this Bill to have the powers which it gives them. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, in his eagerness to get these organisations started, will not try to impose them too quickly. We all know that there is a great deal of criticism from inside each industry, which perhaps does not understand exactly what these organisations can and may do. Possibly, if they are started fairly slowly they will start on very much firmer grounds. Although I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman is most anxious to get some of them started, I hope he will not try to start them too quickly. It is much better to get them started with substantial support and co-operation, than to have suspicion creeping in because they have been imposed too quickly.
The President of the Board of Trade has told us that the chairman is to be one


of the independent members, but I am not clear whether the deputy chairman is also to be one of the independent members, or whether he can be chosen from those representing the other sections. There is one other aspect to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. With the different Ministers having the power to set up these organisations in their different spheres, there is the possibility of an enormous increase in patronage. I am not suggesting that the President, of the Board of Trade will do anything which we would wish to criticise, but there is this possibility in view of the tremendous powers Ministers will have. The President of the Board of Trade may smile at this now, but it is a real possibility at some time in the future.
The Public Accounts Committee, which have power to investigate expenditure of public money, will not, I am informed, review the salaries paid in this direction. In view of the fact that an enormous number of people will be receiving Government patronage, I should like to see a counterpart to the Public Accounts Committee set up to investigate those salaries and appointments. I know the drawback to appointing more committees, but the fact remains that there should be the most careful check of these vast numbers of people.
In conclusion, I would urge the Minister to proceed slowly with these organisations. They are capable of great work, but much will depend how they are brought into being, and how they are initiated in the first year or two. In the early days they will be made or broken, and much, therefore, will depend on the organisations first set up. One of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters has wished him happy landings, but I would warn him not to take his fences too fast.

7.14 p.m.

Dr. Barnet Stross: There is so much in this Bill which is agreeable and stimulating that it is impossible for me not to welcome it wholeheartedly. I am referring in particular to the functions of development councils defined in the First Schedule. It gives us confidence and courage that the future of the industrial areas will be very much better than the past. It is appropriate that I should speak so soon after my hon.

Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies), because I come from a neighbouring division and am associated with an industry which depends on quality and design more than anything else. I am deeply interested in some of the provisions in page 11. I am particularly interested in paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, which deals with the promotion of improvements in design, and also includes the establishment and operation of design centres. The promotion of design centres is very near to the hearts of those associated with plastics and plastic art of any kind. We are under no illusion in my area that, although we lead the world in quality and, to some extent, in design, there was a time in the eighteenth century when they were better. We look forward to the stimulation which should come from this type of encouragement, so that we can give to the world the pottery and design it wants. We turn out nothing which is bad today, because it is all plain white and cheap, and if it is chipped after it is first used, there can be no fault attributed to us. When the new products are seen, I think the public will be content and satisfied with them.
I am a little disturbed when we, come to paragraph 3, because I do not know what is involved. It speaks of promoting research into matters affecting industrial psychology. I am wondering whether the President of the Board of Trade views this in a narrow sense, or whether he is prepared to look at it broadly in conjunction with paragraphs 9 and 10, which are associated with the adoption of measures for securing safer and better conditions of work. Paragraph 10 speaks of researeh in the prevention of industrial diseases. All these matters are intimately linked up with paragraph 3, if it is to be fully and properly understood. A narrow understanding of industrial psychology would suggest the study of wages and how best to co-ordinate muscular movements to secure the very last ounce out of the workers. I should be surprised if that is all that is involved. If we take a wider understanding, it means the study of the relationship between the workers and the employers, the psychological effect of the environment of workers, proneness to accidents and friction between management and workers, and between different classes of workers. I should expect some use to be made of the psychological knowledge obtained during the war. What


excellent work was done at Tavistock Clinic. Does the President of the Board of Trade propose to introduce into industry the same type of psychology which was used for officer selection in the Army, to fit people into jobs they can do and prevent an enormous amount of wastage of production?
It would be possible to give many instances of how an understanding of a man's situation and temperament can turn him into an excellent and skilled worker. One instance comes to my mind, from my own area in the potteries, of a miner who had fractured his spine. Owing to the collapse of one of the vertebrae, he was totally incapacitated. He sat at home in a chair, unable to work and scarcely able to walk. As nothing was being done for him other than payment of compensation, his wife suggested that he might occupy his mind by learning to knit. He learned to knit appreciably well, but became bored. His wife thereupon suggested—and this is an example of true industrial psychology—that he should learn to ice a cake. He laughed at her at first, but he was eventually persuaded to try. To his astonishment, and hers, it was a remarkably artistic effort. It was shown to the neighbours, whereupon steadily, but regularly, orders began to come in to this remarkable man. A little while later he went to his solicitors and said, "I want you to settle my claim." They said, "You must not accept less than £1,400 or £1,500," but he said, "I have a contract for the next five years at £400 a year with the biggest firm in the country, to Mach young women how to ice cakes, because I won a national competition against all corners." That is the sort of thing we want to see if industrial psychology is to be used properly. We know that it hinges on rehabilitation, but rehabilitation is not in a watertight compartment.
Lastly, industrial disease in some areas has been appalling. In North Staffordshire we have been able to conquer lead poisoning as a scourge until it no longer threatens us. Nineteen years ago many industrialists and their advisers told people like myself that there was no such thing as silicosis. We are now showing definite ways in which we shall free ourselves from that tomb. I beg the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers, whether they be concerned with mining, pottery, or agriculture, not to take heed of those who say, "Go slowly. There is

much good in what you are doing today, but do not hurry." We cannot afford to wait when we are concerned with the health and life of the people, and I hope we shall be told that the Government will hasten as quickly as possible.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: On the Second Reading of this Bill I thought it right to express my grave doubt of its value. Not only was I in a minority in the Lobby, but I was duly punished by being sent to serve on Standing Committee C, which had to go into the details of this Measure. Careful listening to the Debate today has not convinced me that the Bill is a good one or that it will confer any real benefits on industry. I agree in part with those who have said that a good deal depends on the spirit in which the Bill is worked. That is true of all legislation, but we have to remember that Ministers and Parliaments are very ephemeral, and that in all these matters it is necessary to see what is said by the Act.
I can well understand that industrialists regard this Bill with some misgiving. What does it provide? That the Minister may set up development councils, which are to be corporations with a common seal and are to have power to hold land. They are to have a number of very large and rather indefinite powers. They are to have power to make levies on industry of a specified amount and to engage and dismiss employees whose remuneration they fix. We are told that there are to be checks on these powers. They have extensive powers to demand from manufacturers the most intimate details of their business. They have power to demand details of costing organisation, expenses, output, and so forth. Manufacturers are liable to furnish this information under the penalty of a fine up to £100 and two years' imprisonment. When that information is given it has to be kept confidential, we are told. But confidentiality does not extend to the information being imparted to the Minister, and manufacturers know that the Minister will, in the vulgar phrase, "have them in his grip," by having the fullest and most intimate knowledge of all their affairs.
It is not a very encouraging prospect that one finds references to integration. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) talked about the integration of


industry. It may be due to my rather morbid turn of mind, but that phrase makes me think of nothing so much as a man who, catching his coat in moving machinery, was integrated into the machine. I should be the last man to accuse the President of the Board of Trade of insincerity, but he told us with the utmost candour that his approach was toward the integration of industry, the coordination of industry with a national plan. He referred to the planning and control necessary for the national economy. He said that there must be integrated schemes as a contribution to the efficiency of private enterprise. That was the very honest and straightforward approach of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to all these problems. But he is only one of a large family. There are many people who think that what is required to restore and improve British industry is more planning, more control, more interference from outside and a tidying up from without. That is a big assumption. Not only is there no vestige of proof of it, but the record of the would-be planners is not such as to inspire any remarkable degree of confidence in their ability to plan other people or things successfully. One thing which is certain, however, is that the passage of this Bill will at once impose a further overhead charge on certain industries. It will create "jobs for the boys" in large numbers,. indeed, in indefinite numbers, because the employees of the corporations are to be within their control, and not under the control of this House at all.
What are the safeguards against Ministerial irresponsibility—consultations? I think that by now we know pretty well that they have very little value against a determined Minister. We have been told in effect that the right hon. Gentleman was able to "talk the bird off its perch" in 'Lancashire. I do not doubt it. One of the leading advocates of the day would, I am sure, be able to do so. I doubt whether in its true sense that could he called consultation. Then we have the safeguard put up for us by the Minister dealing with the matter this afternoon that the matter is to pass before both branches of the legislature. The way to stop things from going through the House of Commons if you do not like them is to pray against them. In this Parliament there have been so far 40

Prayers and not one of them has been successful. In other words, if a Minister decides on a scheme that scheme will be run through this House. Then, of course, there is another place, and it has been delicately hinted that it may not be entirely in accordance with the spirit of this House. It was suggested ingenuously from the Front Bench that what the Minister of Fuel and Power would call a great constitutional crisis is likely to be promoted by something of that kind. If it is supposed that certain people somewhere else are going to poke their fingers into the machinery in that way, I doubt it. These alleged securities are not securities. If we pass this Bill we are giving unlimited power to the Executive in the last resort to control industry. I share the view of all who have spoken that the powers when given, will, I have no doubt, be wisely exercised, but if I am asked whether on balance I consider that the good to be done to industry by this Measure will outweigh the harm caused by further regimentation and control, I am not convinced of the merits of the Bill.

7.34 p.m

Mr. Nigel Birch: I was not a member of the family party in Committee upstairs, but I hope that I will be excused for saying a few words. I want to talk about certain dangers which I can see the Government running into in connection with this Bill. What the Bill does is to set up permanent working parties. We may, therefore, assume that when these working parties are set up, they will share some of the defects of the working parties whose reports we have all read. The main defect of the working parties was their parochialism—the one-eyed view which they took of matters, and the danger that if that one-eyed view is taken in industry, it may lead to a distortion of the national plan—assuming that there is a national plan. To give a rather ridiculous instance from a working party's report to show what I mean—and I give this instance because I think it is a good one and shows the extraordinary state in which people's minds can get when thinking of only one thing—in the hosiery report, these words appear:
Few things occupy a more prominent place in our national life at the present time than stockings.
That is a rather astonishing statement. It may be so. I do not think that there are


any female Members in the House at the moment, and the foreground of their minds may be filled with these things, but I think that on this side of the House the foreground of our minds is not occupied with stockings. That is ridiculous in itself, but it leads to certain dangers. For instance, every working party report has recommended that there should be unlimited capital re-equipment of the industry of which they were talking, and, with the exception of cotton, none of those industries was a basic industry, It is obviously impossible that that can all be done at the same time, but it is recommended that they should all try at the same time. We are near a balance of a payment's crisis. We have an enormous shortage of consumer goods, and to advocate now a wholesale policy of re-equipment would cause an enormous expansion in our capital goods industries and a further distortion of our national economy. That is contrary to Keynsian ideas and against common business prudence. That is the type of thing that may happen if we get these development councils.
Everyone who has spoken has attributed the fact that a great many people in industry are in favour of these development councils exclusively to the charms of the President of the Board of Trade. He has been represented as a sort of super-principal boy, which throws rather a new light on him. There may be one other reason for people being in favour of development councils apart from the charms of the President of the Board of Trade. It may sound rather cynical to mention it, but it is very real. Where there is a development council there is a foot in the relevant Ministry. If any hon. Member asks an industrialist how he spent last week, he will find that nine times out of ten his time has been taken up in wrestling with some particular Ministry, trying to get some permit, licence or permission. If industry has a development council, it will probably get more favour than if it had not a development council. The influence of industries which have development councils may lead to a distortion of the national plan. Many of these industries which will get development councils are not basic industries, and if they are to have preferential influence because of these councils there will be more muddle than there is at present, and that is saying something.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) gave a qualified blessing to the Bill, but I hope that these development councils will not be too freely set up because I think that in many cases they will tend to retard rather than to stimulate our recovery. Sir Norman Kipping at the F.B.I. Conference on exports said:
There is, I think, too hasty a tendency on the part of both Government and industry to stimulate the creation of new organisations each time some matter arises a little outside the existing functions when the need might be met more economically and efficiently, and with far less friction, by adapting some existing body.
I think that there is a great deal of truth in that. The President of the Board of Trade and other hon. Members have mentioned a great many organisations now existing which are already on the job—the National Production Advisory Council, the Council of Industrial Design, the Board of Trade Production Efficiency Branch, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the whole machinery of joint consultation, which is better in some industries than in others; and, above all, such joint industrial councils as were set up with the terms of reference suggested by the Whitley Committee—terms of reference very similar to those of the development councils. I think that in creating this new machinery there may be a danger of overlapping in industry. The danger is that we will lose sight of the essentials.
I wish to give one further quotation. Sir John Woods of the Board of Trade said something at the same conference, at which Sir Norman Kipping spoke, which I think is extraordinarily true. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will read it again. It was published in the Press. This is what he said:
The primary business of industry is to design, manufacture and sell, and in so doing to give the best service it can to its customers while at the same time making a profit.
That is simply put, and it is fundamental. The danger in the Bill is that we will draw men away from that task to attend yet another committee which may very well be otiose and do very little good. The right place for a leader, whether of labour or of industry, is at sight of the work itself or in the market place, and not sitting upon endless committees. If the answer is that the best men will not sit upon the development councils, that


makes the position worse. We shall merely be endowing the Socialist peerage.
I hope that, as we are now accepting the Bill, the Government will guard against the dangers to which I have referred, the danger of setting up unnecessary machinery which will confuse and retard our recovery; the danger of the Government weakening their own central planning by allowing privileged councils to get more than the share they should have according to that national plan; and, finally, the danger of taking good men away from the work that they ought to be doing.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: This Debate has provided quite an agreeable contrast to the Debate on Second Reading. Only the last two hon. Members who spoke, and particularly the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts), have struck a hostile note. A particular contrast is that between the speech made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) today and the speech he made upon the Second Reading, in which he damned the Bill in no uncertain terms. His speech today gave it a rather qualified blessing.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member will no doubt acknowledge that the Government have learned a good deal during the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Shackleton: I was rather expecting some such remark. The Government have made no concession of principle on the Bill. They have accepted a number of minor Amendments, but the principle is exactly what it was when the Bill was first introduced. The speech of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) raised points which involve the principle of the Bill, but this is not the time to re-argue the whole case for the Bill. The purpose of the Bill and the terms in which it is drawn are such that I cannot see that there is a danger of industries getting themselves into an unduly privileged position in relation to the national plan for investment. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that if there were such a danger as, for example, the hosiery industry saying that more stockings were in the best interests of the country, it would be undesirable, but obviously each industry will make the best case it can. Where there is need for

a properly constituted body, it should be constituted along clear and definite lines, with limited functions. This is what the Bill does. I do not see that there is any particular danger of the silver tongue of the President of the Board of Trade talking business men into something against their best interests. I can assure the hon. Member for Handsworth—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—that Lancashire is a much tougher nut to crack than he may think. If the President of the Board of Trade has succeeded in selling this scheme to Lancashire—it took a bit of selling to both sides of the industry—it is because of its intrinsic merits, and the advantage to the cotton industry of its proposals. The Bill is the basis for carrying out those proposals, which commended themselves to the industry of Lancashire.
There is a danger when it comes to finding men for the councils. We should avoid taking too many efficient business men out of the private sector of industry and putting them on to development councils. That point should be borne in mind. Obviously, there is a limit to the number of able leaders.
I should like to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Flint when he quoted the head of the F.B.I. as saying that existing organisations could have taken over these duties. Existing organisations are the trade associations, and it has been clearly shown during the discussions on the Bill that those associations are not entirely suitable for the purpose. It is necessary that the labour side should be fully represented, if we are to get the maximum utilisation of our resources particularly in the utilisation and development of labour. Trade associations are obviously not suitable for that purpose, quite apart from the fact that they are not always fully representative of the industries to which they are related.
I am glad that the Paymaster-General is to reply, because I would put to him two points, one of which concerned him in his previous capacity at the Department of Overseas Trade. I hope he will be able to answer them. The first point relates to export research and other forms of export promotion. I hope that full use will be made of existing organisations and that the danger of duplication will be avoided. There is a perfectly good national organisation available, namely B.E.T.R.O., and if it is not


the right one for the promotion of export research then whatever organisation there is should be used. There obviously must be a limit to the extent to which individual industries can set up their own export promotion research departments. The second point is that which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). We would like to know how the Board of Trade propose to administer, to exercise supervision and to give advice to a large s number of development councils. That will be a very serious administrative problem. I know it has not yet arisen because the development councils are not there. But it will not be possible for every development council to work on the basis of the Cotton Board by personal letters going between the President of the Board of Trade and Sir Raymond Streat. That is an admirable way of dealing with a special problem but there will be many industries concerned. It will be very interesting for the House to know how the Board of Trade intend to supervise, to ensure there is no overlappng and no waste of resources.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I think most Members will agree that great progress has been made for a long time past in co-operation in three particular respects. These are co-operation among industries, between industry and the workers, and between industries and the State. Any scheme, to be successful, must contain those three facets of co-operation. The test of the Bill, when it becomes law, will be whether it really promotes all that co-operation or merely acts as a drag upon it. There is one point about the Bill which I felt, thoughout the Committee Stage, to be obnoxious because of the responsibility of abuse. It is that these schemes do not have in them sufficient of the voluntary element. I appreciate that in the setting-up of development councils, the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister concerned, will consult the proper parties.
I ask the Minister whether he has entirely closed his mind to the possibility of persons appointed by him being, in fact, elected by the interests concerned. I suggest that that is particularly important, so far as the workers' side is concerned. There are obviously difficulties to be overcome on the side of industry itself,

but a system of Voting might easily be worked out. It would, I think, have to be a mixed system based on the interests and importance of the concern, and weighted possibly in accordance with regions and such like considerations. It obviously could not be a numerical system, because the smaller factories would completely outweigh the bigger ones, in numbers, while if it were based entirely on interests, the big factories would dominate the development councils. I ask the Paymaster-General to give some consideration to the important principle of the development councils being elected.
There was another factor on the Bill which I, personally, disliked. That is the penal Clause and the provisions for audits by the development councils. We have in this country a body of men who have gained a very great reputation for integrity, namely, chartered accountants. I should have thought that a chartered accountant's certificate would have been adequate in this regard. I can see that in the early stages, the problem will be to keep the co-operation of all units in any industry, just as in the later stages it is going to be the maintenance of the influence of these development councils without tightening up their control, as occurred to the case of the Merchant Guilds in the Middle Ages. If a regime is not imposed compulsorily on industry in the early stages, then I think this Bill will have a great future.
There are one or two other questions which I should like to ask. One follows very closely on what has been said by the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton). It relates to the bodies or persons with whom the appropriate Minister is to consult, before he grants the renewal of the charter to a council, which is to be done after three years in the first instance and after every five years in subsequent reviews. With whom does the Minister propose to consult? Has he in mind the setting up of a body of independent experts, be they lawyers, economists, engineers or accountants, who will be recruited after a certain experience in industry and who will not have a purely Civil Service background? Will he have a panel of these to consult; and will they, in turn, be capable of being appointed to the development councils as independent members? Is that how he intends to work the scheme?


Or has he in mind a panel of all chairmen of development councils which have already been set up to give advice to him; and how is the public interest to be looked after when it comes to renewing the charters after the first period of three years, and for a subsequent period of five years.
Finally, as I have said, this Bill is the culmination of a period of progress and co-operation, and it seems to me that its future will depend on the extent to which industry is allowed to govern itself, and central control is avoided. It is obvious, of course, that what we have to obtain is compliance with the over-all State plan, while at the same time maintaining initiative in industry. For that purpose automony of industry is essential in my view for the maximum amount of initiative to be maintained within industry itself. This generation has a great urge to get things done, and to see things work. It is prepared to experiment on how things should be done. There are, however, pitfalls to be avoided, and I think that the principal pitfall will prove to be too much interference in the affairs of a particular industry. If we can achieve co-operation in industries without controlling them politically root and branch, I think this Bill will work, and will be of great benefit to the nation.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words in support of the Third Reading of this Bill. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs, and I think it is true to say that both sides found the passage of this Bill through Committee of very considerable interest. I think the House will agree that this Bill is of outstanding importance, because it endeavours to set a guiding principle in industry, which we have never yet so far attempted to establish in legislation. As one who has considerable experience of trade union work, I realise now significant and how important it is that we should have provisions which arrange for the worker, whose labour makes production and output possible, to be found a place in industry with the employers and the Government where he can accept some measure of control and responsibility for his own industry.
Too often in my experience have employers taken the view that the worker is

just a commodity item, which is bought for a wage. He is expected to do what he is told and apart from that he is not expected to have a voice in the welfare, interest and future of his industry. That day is past and gone. I believe we are living in an entirely different world from that in which we have been living in during the last century. I am very glad that hon. Members opposite recognise the changing conditions of our time, and realise that the worker has the same rights as the employer in regard to industrial development. If this Bill is adopted and operated in the right spirit, the spirit of which we have heard so much from the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), I believe it will be of great and lasting interest to the welfare of our country and people.
In my own constituency, where we have over 500 factories and a large industrial working population, I recently sent to some of my friends in a well known factory the report of discussions in Standing Committee on this Bill. As a result of their reading that report the workers' side of the joint production committee approached the management and asked if it was possible to have a conference of the whole works, in order to discuss the policy of the factory and give some indication to the workers of what the future policy was. More than 300 workers in that factory stayed for an hour and a half during their own time to listen to the managing director explain the policy of the factory and what its future development was hoped to be. There were also spokesmen from the workers as well, and afterwards many questions were asked and answered. That is an indication of the spirit which exists in most of our factories and enterprises today. If the correct and proper approach is made, the workers will respond, not only by taking an interest in the main essentials and needs of the industry, but by showing that spirit about which we have heard so much in regard to co-operation between the workers the managements and the Government.
The hon. Member for Stockport asked that we should endeavour to bring about he closest co-operation between the Government and the masters and workers. I feel that he made a slip of the tongue because the day of masters and servants has passed, and I think that, psychologically, the relationship of master dictating


to servant is one that we might usefully relegate to the Victorian age. We must realise that, in facing the problems in front of us, it is not the master-and-servant relationship that is needed in industry, but rather a partnership between management and workers in a joint enterprise. If the workers are approached in that spirit, they will respond, to the benefit both of industry and the nation. I would like, in passing, to make a comment upon paragraph 14 of the First Schedule, which in my view describes one of the most important functions which the development councils are to undertake. It provides for
Promoting arrangements for co-operative organisations for supplying materials and equipment, for co-ordinating production, and for marketing and distributing products.
If that function is carried out by the development councils, it will be of great assistance to the smaller industries and enterprises. It will be of inestimable value in placing at their disposal a cooperative organisation for supplying materials and equipment. With regard to co-ordinating production, and marketing and distributing products, that is a prime function of the development councils. On this side of the House we understand too well the state of industry in the period between the two wars. Industry went along its own blind course, experiencing under-production, overproduction and unemployment as well, and there was a lack of any national co-ordinating plan. As a consequence of anarchy in industrial production, we found ourselves in a morass of booms and slumps from which it was very difficult to lift ourselves. I believe this Bill will give valuable guidance to industrial undertakings; greater knowledge and more facts to the individual industrial enterprises. I believe it will go a good way towards avoiding slumps and depressions in the years ahead and will enable industry to plan more securely and effectively its enterprise in the years to come. I would like briefly to comment on paragraph 8 of the First Schedule, which provides for
promoting the training of persons engaged or proposing engagement in the industry, and their education in technical or artistic subjects relevant thereto.
There is in my constituency a famous technical college which serves a great part of the North-West London industrial concentration. At the present time that

college has not sufficient accommodation for all the young men and women who wish to equip themselves with scientific and technical knowledge in the service of industry. We are living in a time when the tempo of scientific knowledge and discovery is increasing by leaps and bounds. Men were content for 4,000 years to accept wind as the motive power of sea transport. It was barely more than 100 years ago that that motive power changed to steam.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is still the motive power of the Government.

Mr. Sparks: We are living at a time when the momentum of scientific and technological development is increasing very rapidly, and if we are not careful we shall find that industry will be left very far behind. The war has brought in its train very considerable scientific discoveries; to mention only one, there is the emergency of atomic energy, with all its possibilities when harnessed to industry and production.
Therefore, it is most important, in facing the problems of the future, that we should see to it that there is the highest standard of scientific and technological knowledge among the men and women who are entering industry. Unless we are prepared to march in step with new discoveries, inevitably we must lapse into stagnation, and stagnation ultimately means death. I hope the development councils will pay special regard to the recruitment and training of persons engaged in industry. I hope they will not limit this training and knowledge to the mere humdrum, everyday affairs of an enterprise. There are men and women from humble walks of life who possess the ability, given the opportunity, to undertake the highest responsibilities in industry and management. Every effort should be made by the development councils to provide a means of training and education to the ordinary workman and workwoman in industry who possesses the ability to develop that ability and to take managerial and directive responsibility in industry. I hope the development councils will provide that opportunity.
My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in moving the Third Reading, said that he regarded this Bill as being very largely of an experimental nature, and he said that


it had arisen very largely from the reports of working parties and was very closely linked to the industries in which working parties had already been established. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will go wider afield than that. I hope he will endeavour to spread the principle of this Bill not only to industries where working parties are established, but to other industries as well where there is a general acceptance of this principle. What we must do, in the struggle for production ahead of us, is to co-ordinate our industrial undertakings, particularly the smaller units, in a nationally constructive line of policy so that they can act and work together with the full knowledge and information which they need not only to develop maximum production, but also to market those products when once they have been produced. I welcome the Third Reading of this Bill and I feel sure that if it is accepted in industry—as I believe it will be—it will bring a better understanding, promote that spirit of co-operation which is so vital, and equip industry the better to face the problems of the future and to give the nation the maximum of benefit from their energy and enterprise.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: Like the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) I have followed the progress of this Bill through its various stages. We now come to what is the final stage so far as we are concerned. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Acton was guilty of an error in his approach to this Bill—an error which I hope will not actuate Members of the Government when they come to put it into operation. Neither this Bill nor any development council is a substitute for individual effort and enterprise. Nothing that can be established in the form of an industrial council will take the place of the drive and energy of men in industry. If hon. Members opposite think that it is possible to devise some piece of legislation which will take the place of the spirit of adventure and enterprise which has established the industrial greatness of this country, they are sadly mistaken. The hon. Member for Acton very rightly pointed out that we are experiencing in this century a growing social consciousness. There is a desire, on the part of all sections of the community, that the interests of the ordinary man

should be regarded as paramount, and that industry should serve the interests of the mass of the people. We on this side of the House are just as sympathetic towards that view as those who sit opposite.
It may be that there is something in this idea of development councils which will help to bring about that state of affairs. We have been searching for the past 30 years for some method of coordination between the State and industry. We have amassed a host of organisations, and one of our criticisms of this Bill is that it adds one more organisation to the already difficult and complex pattern of links between the Government and industry. Nevertheless, as I have suggested, there may be something in this Bill which will serve as a link between the State and industry, and help to ensure that industry serves a social purpose. At any rate, this is a better idea than the stale, barren and unprofitable idea of nationalisation, and we accept it in that spirit.
The Government have been wise in excluding Government representatives from the development councils. I know that there has been considerable pressure brought to bear by their own supporters to suggest that the councils should include representatives of the various Ministries concerned, and I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on resisting it, because I am certain that the conception of a council which can be effective would be destroyed if the councils themselves actually included Government representatives. These councils may be very successful, or they may be complete and utter failures. They may be discarded pieces of machinery in three or four years' time. Whether or not they are successful depends upon a variety of things. If they are to be successful, we certainly have to capture in some way, the spirit of the guilds to which an hon. Member on this side referred a short time ago.
We still object very strongly to the compulsory nature of the powers which the President of the Board of Trade has thought fit to take to himself under this Bill. We still believe that nothing can be done through compulsion so far as development councils are concerned. We believe that the overwhelming principle must be a voluntary one, and it would have been worth while had the President of the Board of Trade sacrificed some of


his powers in order to convince industry generally that there was in fact a desire to work on a purely voluntary basis. There has been some talk by hon. Members opposite about this being the second layer of nationalisation. I hope that the Paymaster-General, who is to reply, will make it clear that that is in no way the conception of His Majesty's Government. I hope he will make it clear that this Measure is an attempt to improve—if it can be improved—the private sector of industry. Whether, after Margate, the Paymaster-General or the President of the Board of Trade will be capable of damming the tide I do not know. It seems to hon. Members on this side that they have established a Frankenstein monster which has developed an insatiable appetite, and that they may not be able to resist demands for further encroachment on what we must regard as the private sector of industry. At any rate, if we are to have definite sectors of industry, one operated by the Government and another by private organisation, it is essential that there should be a clear understanding of the lines of demarcation, because unless industry has confidence in its own position and security it cannot go ahead.
During the Second Reading Debate we said that we did not like the idea of an enablement. We thought that a separate Bill to deal with each industry would have been more desirable. We still hold that view, and it has been strengthened by the innumerable occasions upon which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has had to give vague assurances. Indeed, in moving the Third Reading today, the President of the Board of Trade himself said that legislation which would be suitable and desirable and necessary in one industry might not be suitable or desirable in another. We are certainly not satisfied with the old sedative of an affirmative Resolution because we know very well that we are unable to amend it in any shape or form.
I want to know from the Paymaster-General what exactly is the position of the development councils in the economic plan—always assuming that we have an economic plan. We are told that we have, but what it is no one really knows. However, assuming that we have one, we want to know what is the relationship between the development councils and the

Government, the various national bodies, the Council of Industrial Design and the Council of Industrial Psychology, More important still, what is to be the relationship between these development councils and the trade unions and trade associations? In the unfortunately close relationship which exists between industry and the State at the moment, many communications go from the Government to the trade associations. What is to be the channel of communication under the new regime when these development councils are set up? Are there to he duplicate sets of instructions and advices sent to the trade associations, the trade unions and the councils? We should like to know exactly how the development councils fit in with the general economic plan, and to what extent they will impinge on the territory of the trade associations.
I turn now to one or two points of detail. The first is, will the Paymaster General tell us why the Admiralty and the Ministry of Food are designated as appropriate authorities? There may be some justification for the other six mentioned in the Bill, but it is difficult to imagine why it is necessary to bring in the Ministry of Food and the Admiralty. Secondly, there is that iniquitous Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which says that a development council order may provide for any incidental or supplementary matter. The danger of that was emphasised in this House this evening, when the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) suggested to the President of the Board of Trade that he should insert into this Bill a provision which the President of the Board of Trade very rightly said belonged to the Ministry of Labour. That indicates the danger of having such a wide Clause in this Bill. Indeed, it seems hardly worth while having the Bill at all with such a Clause in it.
Much has been said about independent members, and there is obviously a difference of opinion on that subject between the two sides of the House. Independent members obtained some prestige in the eyes of some people as a result of the working parties, but there is a very material difference between the functions and purpose of an independent member of a development council and those of a member of a working party. The working party was a brief survey, and it is


true that independent members of such parties proved valuable, but an independent member who is permanently attached to a development council ceases after a short time, to be an independent member; he becomes steeped in the industry and has a part in its advantages and disadvantages. We on this side of the House say very firmly that the selection of these independent members will have to be made most carefully. There is no room, in the ruthless battle which we will have to fight for production, for passengers. It does not matter whether they are passengers from the City of London in top hats, as my right hon. Friend said in the Committee, or whether they are gentlemen who affect the disordered appearance of Left-wing intellectuals. Neither class is desirable at the present time. Moreover, the trade union element would object to that kind of independent member, as the President of the Board of Trade ought to know, because they have objected to him several times and have regarded him as a kind of independent member. I hope that in appointing these independent members due consideration will be give to the need for getting sound men who can serve a useful purpose.
There are one or two items in the Schedule to which I wish to refer. The first Schedule is like Noah's Ark in that it contains something of everything. But it also deals with one or two important points, and of those the one with which I wish to deal is research. This country is very rapidly becoming research conscious, a thing of which I think most hon. Members on both sides of the House will approve. There is however a very real danger that we shall rest upon the idea of centralised research, that we shall neglect individual research and come to depend upon a central organisation. In research, as in every other field of human activity, individual effort is the most important thing. If we had 30 or 40 separate research organisations in an industry, each pursuing its ends, we should be likely to get more results than if we had one large central organisation. The danger which my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) pointed out, that we are going to take from industries which are maintaining large research organisations such sums of money that they have to cut down their own organisations, is a very real danger. The

President of the Board of Trade was reassuring up to a point, but I hope that the Paymaster-General will be able to say that in assessing the levy upon firms which are already conducting large-scale research account will be taken of what they are spending.
There is one point in connection with the Schedule which I want to stress, and that is that the councils will be concerned with the training of personnel for industry. I hope they will pay particular attention to the training of foremen and charge hands. One of the weaknesses at present is that foremen and charge hands are not sufficiently trained; often they are men who are capable of doing their job very well, but they have none of the qualities of leadership and no conception of organisation. A great deal can be done in improving the quality of these N.C.Os. of industry, and that is a task which may very well be put into the hands of the councils.
By this Measure I believe we may well do something to improve our industry. It is true that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have now said that they do not propose to do anything to rock the industrial boat, a process in which they have been actively engaged for a large number of years; they now are, or pretend to be, reformed or semi-reformed characters, but industry is still suspicious of the overnight change, almost as suspicious as their own supporters. It is essential, in my view, that they should apply this Bill in a manner which leaves no doubt as to. their intentions. If this Bill is implemented in a way that shows a clear desire to take advantage of and improve private industrial organisations, it may well be of some service, but if it takes the form of a threat, if there is a background of Margate mutterings, it may well do much harm to our industrial organisation.
As in the past the real industrial progress of this country is dependent upon the drive and energy of individual industrialists, and if this Bill does anything to kill that it will do something to kill British industry. If it is implemented in an enlightened way, if the division between the private and public sectors of industry is clearly made, if the Government show their intention to co-operate, I am sure it will do something to create improvements. There is among industrialists a growing feeling of statesman-


ship; I am sorry that among the Government there is not a corresponding spirit of business experience. If there were, then we could look for very great results from the future. I hope that in the implementation of this Bill wisdom will prevail, because it can be either a great success or a complete failure, and that will depend not on industry but on the actions of His Majesty's Government.

8.30 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): The Bill has had a general welcome from both sides of the House with, I think, one solitary exception. As it has already been explained at some length by my right hon. and learned Friend when he moved the Third Reading, I feel sure the House would not wish me to take up a great deal of time. Nevertheless, a great many points have been raised tonight on which I feel I ought to comment, though really I ought not to be at this box at all. We all regret, and I regret as keenly as anybody, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not here to wind up the Debate on this Bill on which, as has already been said, he has done a great deal of valuable work in Committee. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery from the indisposition from which he is suffering.
I cannot, of course, answer all the interesting points and all the numerous questions which have been put from both sides of the House. I give what is a usual undertaking on these occasions and I give it very sincerely, that those questions which I do not answer and those suggestions to which I am not able to refer in this short speech, will be carefully studied by my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department and by the other Ministers who are responsible for this Bill. I cannot be tempted by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) into giving a list of the industries which will never be nationalised. He asked me to draw a line between the public sector and the private sector of industry. If I attempted to do so, that is what I should be drawn into. The intentions of the Government in promoting the Bill were clearly explained by my right hon. and learned Friend when he moved the Third Reading, and I do not wish to repeat, or attempt to amplify anything he said. I have no need to refer again to the reiterated objection of

the hon. Member for Bucklow to compulsion. I have said something already on that point and I need hardly repeat that we have no desire to impose development councils upon completely unwilling industries. Nor can I usefully add anything to what I have tried to say about the qualifications of independent members. We want them to be people who are acceptable to the industry and qualified to give sage advice.
He asked why the Ministry of Food and the Admiralty were included in the list of Departments concerned with the development councils. The answer is that they are both production Departments for certain industries. The Admiralty is responsible for the shipbuilding industry, and the chain cable industry, and the Ministry of Food for all food manufacturing and processing. Development councils might be set up for some of these industries.
I must say another word about an objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) still apparently feels somewhat keenly—that there is a danger in the functions described in paragraphs 2, 9 and 11 of the First Schedule. The danger, he suggests, is that the development councils may interfere in matters concerning labour relations which are normally dealt with by other bodies. I should like to say again, as my right hon. Friend has already said, that we have every intention of trying to secure that the appropriate machinery is used in each case. We felt that the insertion of an express exclusion of such functions, as suggested in an Amendment on the Order Paper, might throw doubt on the way in which the development councils should exercise certain of their functions. It might hamper them in seeking to promote safer and better working conditions because they relate to conditions of labour and may affect remuneration.
The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) said, no doubt speaking with good authority from his experience of the pottery industry, that the trade unions would welcome the help of the development councils in matters relating to conditions with which they did not happen to deal. Some of the existing voluntary bodies deal with a very wide range of activities. Others deal with a smaller range. Where they deal with a smaller range and the development


council can help by undertaking some study or inquiry and making recommendations and representations, surely it should be allowed to do so? Moreover, as my right hon. Friend has already said, where the joint industrial councils or similar bodies exist, they will be invited to nominate One member from each side, to serve on development councils for the express purpose of securing—I almost hesitate to use the word "liaison"— liaison and preventing overlapping.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), in an interesting account of his own experience in the cotton industry, referred to the suspicion and distrust which can exist in industry between employer and the employed, and pointed out that this suspicion and distrust frequently arose from lack of information, and might be dissipated by the giving of proper information. I entirely agree, and I was surprised that he seemed to be suspicious of the value of independent members on these bodies. Surely independent members looking with a detached eye on the industry, can help in this way to disseminate the full facts regarding each side to the other side, and thus improve the feeling of trust and confidence which is essential if these councils are to work? May I express the hope that when a development council is established, the members will not think of themselves always in terms of two sides. This division into two sides, which frequently takes place in discussions between employers and employed, may be very appropriate when wages or profits and other matters are concerned. But when the mutual improvement of the industry, the increase of its output and efficiency, are under discussion, I hope that, to some degree, that feeling of belonging to two separate sides will disappear and members will contribute of their knowledge and experience, though of course they derive their experience from different types of occupation in the industry.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Niall Macpherson) asked whether the members would be elected. I should have thought not. I should have thought it unwise to go in for election in that way, because that might do the very thing which would contribute to the feeling of "sides" in the industry. The selection of people from a panel of nominees put forward by each side, would be the best

way to create that co-operative feeling, and that feeling of unity for the 'special purpose of the development council.
As I said just now there was a solitary voice of protest against the Bill. It came from the hon. Member for Hands-worth (Mr. H. Roberts) who is not now in his place: I will only say that it seemed to me to be a voice from the past. He expressed fear of the disclosure of information and fear of persons whom he described as planners. Surely the information that will be asked for under the provisions of this Bill, is information to be given to the industry as a whole? The industry itself, through its workers and employers, will be the planner in this case. The answer to the hon. Member for Handsworth had really been given before he spoke, by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), whose wise and valuable speech I greatly welcomed. He laid emphasis on the desirability of the spirit of friendly co-operation in these industries and alluded to the necessity for freely given information in order to create that impression. He specifically alluded to the desirability of explaining all the time, and I quite agree with him that people need to have things explained to them. British people do not like to take orders from somebody up above, without an explanation of why the orders are necessary. We must explain to the men in the workshops the need for particular industrial schemes, for particular allocations of materials and for the production of new equipment for export as against home trade.
All that kind of thing needs to be done even more fully than we have been able to do it up to date. We are applying our minds very carefully indeed to seeking ways and means of explaining more and more, and we hope that the development council will be a piece of machinery for explaining, as the hon. Member for Burslem said. The experience gained in the working parties proved the success of this method of collaboration, this tripartite system of organisation in industry. I am sorry to notice that the face of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot—who is leading a praiseworthy campaign for the improvement of our language on these occasions—pales at the rather cumbersome word "tripartite." But a triangle suggests domestic discord, so I feel we must stick to the word "tripartite" on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Stockport said we must be cautious in consultation. In these matters, he said, if one is wise, one feels one's way. I agree. At the same time one is all too conscious of the fact as the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) said, that time is short. There must be some speeding up, some slight danger incurred, perhaps, in pursuing this method of organisation because it is so necessary at present, and because the job which we want it to do is so urgent and necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) asked—and the hon. Member for Bucklow repeated the question later on—how will the development councils help; economic planning? How will they fit into the machinery for devising a national plan and carrying out that national plan, explaining that national plan? How, asked the hon. Member for Luton, are we to give each industry its target, make the target known and see that the target is hit? Is the function, described in paragraph 19 of the First Schedule to the Bill, he asked, the instrument for this purpose? I can only say that some of his questions go too wide to be debated now; this is not the place to attempt to describe machinery for planning the whole of industry in Great Britain. All I would say is that, clearly, the method of conveying any information relating to planning, must vary from industry to industry. It would be most unlikely that the central planning organisation would reject an instrument which lay ready to hand and, when the development councils are established, they will be appropriate instruments undoubtedly, and must be used for this purpose of giving information, but not necessarily in every case for the purpose of implementing a plan.
In that connection I should refer to the valuable remarks made by the hon. Member for Burslem about the necessity for research and for expansion of some of the industries in which the councils will be established; also to the remarks of his colleague in the representation of the pottery area, the hon. Member for Hanley, who made some most interesting remarks which I shall certainly study in detail later, about the importance of human relations aad industrial psychology. I agree. That is the kind of function which these development councils can best perform, and in conducting research into psychology, into exports, into all the other

things mentioned, they will surely be playing a valuable part in the general economic plan.
The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) felt that somehow the existence of the development councils would spoil planning by over-emphasising the importance of stockings. Referring to the development councils, he said that if industries have preferential treatment because they had these councils, we shall get into a muddle. Of course we shall, but I do not see any reason, and I was unable, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton), to find any reason why the existence of a development council should lead to the giving of preferential treatment in the allocation of supplies, labour or equipment, to any industry. He urged us not to create too many organisations, but rather to adapt the old and existing organisations to our purpose. I entirely agree. One does not want forever to create new organisations every time a new problem arises, we want to use the existing organisations, and my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of setting up a large number of development councils very quickly. I asked him this question specifically before he had to leave the House, and he gave me that answer. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Flint and the hon. Member for Preston who asked that we should not create in these new organisations something which would overlap existing bodies. The hon. Member for Preston mentioned B.E.T.R.O. which may already be doing valuable research work. The Ministers responsible will have to watch that very carefully indeed when they draft their orders. I am sure that hon. Members will not lose the opportunity given to them, when the orders are placed before Parliament, of seeing that such overlapping does not occur. I hope I have answered some of the more important questions put to me. If I have failed to satisfy hon. Members' curiosity perhaps they will forgive me, since I have not been so closely concerned with this Bill as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Collins: I apologise for interposing a few remarks at this late stage, but I do so because of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Buck-low (Mr. Shepherd) that there was little or


no experience of these matters on this side of the House. It so happens that for the last five years I have been chairman of an advisory committee which has exercised most, if not all, of the proposed functions of development councils, and some of the experience I have had in this matter may therefore be of interest. In 1942, with the approval of the Ministry of Supply, this purely voluntary body was set up consisting not merely of manufacturing interests, but also of the producers of raw materials in this country, the importers of raw materials, the merchants, in fact every single interest connected with the production of the goods with which we were concerned. The Committee involved the organisation of every single employer in the country to a total of some thousand, and the concentration on a particular type of product needed for the war effort. The Committee had no statutory functions but was able to exercise certain sanctions by reason of the fact that it controlled the importation and the distribution and the home production of all the raw materials.
Now those functions are continuing although the war is at an end, and they are continuing by the desire of the members of the Committee and of the whole industry. In my experience the vital importance of that Committee and of the development councils which are to be set up under this Bill when it becomes an Act, is that they must communicate with and have relations with every single employer in the particular industry with which they are concerned, and somehow get that information down to the individual work-people in the industry. If they can do that, they will be a big success; if they do not, then they will fail.
Today we have exhortations and slogans on the hoardings, but they do not reach the individual workman. They do not even reach the individual employer. A suggestion has been made largely from the other side that the future depends so much on the initiative and enterprise of individual employers. The hon. Member for Bucklow said rightly that there is no substitute for individual effort, but he was wrong in implying that enterprise is lessened, or at an end, when people act in concert. The whole experience of

people engaged in development councils is that improvements are enormous when people act together, whereas where industry is disintegrated and employers are acting as independent units, cutting each other's throats, industry goes down, and continues to go down. What the hon. Member calls the stale idea of nationalisation, has been found to be the only remedy to save those industries which have got into such a situation. The only possible way in which development councils can assist in getting information, and in getting the message down to the individual, is through the encouragement of works' councils. Probably they will encourage joint production committees, but if they are on an industrial level, the main objective will not be achieved. They must be in the workshops.
I have been chairman of a works council on which only four of the 14 members were ex officio, and the other To were elected. They have complete executive powers in running the business, and the effect on production in such cases is indeed remarkable. It is the only way in which necessary information can be got down from council level to the level of the people engaged on the job. In the last 16 months it has been my experience in the council with which I am connected that production has been quadrupled, and that rests entirely on the fact that each individual understands his part in the industry. If only development councils can introduce that kind of spirit throughout their industries, they will be able to play the part in the production effort for which they are designed. I feel this Bill has been framed on the right lines. But whether it is to be a great success, depends entirely on the way in which it is implemented, and on the spirit with which it is received. If there is sufficient enlightenment among employers' organisations they will be queuing up for powers to get development councils formed under this Measure, and in that spirit I welcome the Bill.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

CHIEF CONSTABLE, SALFORD (APPOINTMENT)

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Hardy: I make no apology for raising this question this evening. It arises out of a Question I asked the Home Secretary on 8th May, and out of his unsatisfactory and ungracious reply. I feel that Salford has the right to have its case presented through its representative from the watch committee in the same manner and spirit as that in which the Home Secretary dealt with the Question. I asked the Home Secretary about the appointment of the chief constable of Salford. The Home Secretary has no greater freedom or right in this House to say things about a person outside than has a back bencher. I am a humble Member of this House, and I feel I am entitled to protect people who are not able to defend themselves against an onslaught such as was made by the Home Secretary on 8th May, against the watch committee. For many years Salford has been proud of its police force. Its former chief constable, the late Major Godfrey, was a national figure who for many years was held up as a sterling example for other police forces to follow. I am not going to take up a great amount of time in dealing with the individual concerned; I am concerned about the watch committee whose confidence has been shaken. They should know more about their job than any hon. Member in this House, and I want to raise this matter in their interest.
The person concerned started as a probationer constable, and went through every phase of police work until in 1939 he was appointed deputy chief constable of Salford. During the blitz period, with a chief constable aged between 65 and 70, one can appreciate the responsibilities and duties which fell to the deputy chief constable during war difficulties and overcrowding, and the type of work for which he was responsible at that time. When the vacancy occurred, the watch committee decided on a ballot by 12 to three that this man should be appointed chief constable. On the vote for the substantive motion it was unanimously agreed. We were then told that because the person had not served in any other police force the Home Office were not too ready to approve of the appointment. Arising out of the first refusal, a deputation went from Salford Watch Committee and

waited on the Home Secretary to whom they put their case on behalf of the deputy chief constable being appointed chief constable. I believe the Home Secretary will agree that he complimented them on the manner in which they put their case and on the very good case they made out. Until then we were told that the appointment was not confirmed because the man had not served in any other police force.
Since then a second refusal was brought about after the Home Secretary had agreed to see the individual who had already been turned down once, and he had no knowledge of the atmosphere at the meeting of the deputation and the Home Secretary. He was sent for to be interrogated and interviewed by the Home Secretary, and following the interview the Home Secretary again refused to confirm the appointment. At the interview reference was made to some little difficulties which existed in 1940 between the deputy chief and the chief, and members of the deputation were not able to do justice to the references the Home Secretary made, with the result that the deputation brought the person who was mayor in that year to deal with the question in every aspect. In the meantime, I saw the Home Secretary, and he said he had forgotten all about it, and now we are in the position that we do not know why it has been turned down, except that, arising from my Question to the Home Secretary asking why the man had been disqualified from the post, we were simply told that he was unfit and, in reply to a supplementary question, that he was inefficient—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Would my hon. Friend mind saying what it was that he said I had forgotten?

Mr. Hardy: The Home Secretary will remember that I asked if he had received a letter from the town clerk of Salford asking to see the deputation again, and he said "Yes." My right hon. Friend then said to me, "That is not an indication that my mind is open." I replied, "I hope it is not an indication that your mind is closed either, for you are wasting your time in fixing up the interview." I said, "They are bringing a man who will deal with the questions and answers arising out of the matter you raised at the previous interview." The answer I got was, "That has gone from my mind. I


have finished with it and have thought no more about it." We brought the man, who talked. We are told that the officer concerned has been rejected because of an interview that may have lasted for 45 minutes.
This is a serious matter for watch committees and local authorities. I know that my right hon. Friend may tell the House, as he told us on the deputation, and as he is very fond of repeating, as though no other person has served on any local authority, "I have given the greatest part of my life to a county borough." I would never use that for the purpose of building up my case. Even if I had been on a county council or on a joint committee, that would not give me any greater right to say that I was in a position to decide in 45 minutes whether a stranger was a fit and proper person to be the chief constable of a particular city.
This man has an exceptional record. If there is any weakness in his case at all it is because he does not wear "the old school tie." He had no college or university education. He came from a working-class family, left school at 14 years of age and continued his studies at night school, which was all that his parents could afford. In course of time he was seconded to A.M.G.O.T. and sent out as a lieutenant-colonel. Since he came back he has carried on as the deputy chief constable, and has been acting chief constable during the time this vacancy has been pending. He has only achieved that in 27 years, passing through every phase of the service. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Members of this House that in 1939 there was a minute from the Salford watch committee, which was approved by the then Home Secretary and the Home Office. I hope that the House will pardon me if I read it, as I feel it is very material. I recognise that a lot of people have said, "You are wasting your time; the Home Secretary will never change his mind." That may be true, but someone else's battles have to be fought, and there is a vital principle involved in this matter, because we pay 50 per cent. towards the cost of our police force and it is somewhat difficult to maintain efficiency if we are refused the appointment of a chief constable because he is not satisfactory to

the Home Secretary. That is why the public of Salford are so keenly interested.
I know that the Home Secretary and the chairmen of watch committees have said from time to time that the watch committee have the power, but when it comes to a question of choosing a man., the cost of whom the ratepayers would have to find, it becomes a people's question. We on the watch committees represent the people. We have been elected to the watch committee to represent the same people who have elected us to represent them here. The minute which I wish to read is dated 28th March, 1939. It states:
SIR,
Recommendation for the award of the King's Police Medal
I have the honour to submit a recommendation by the Watch Committee of this City for the award of the King's Police Medal to Mr. Robert Howard, the Deputy Chief Constable, in respect of the services he rendered in connection with the recent trial, Rex v. Walsh and Others, at the Manchester Assizes. From six o'clock in the morning of the 16th January, when a series of bomb explosions took place in the city of Manchester, until the conclusion of this trial on 10th March, Mr. Howard was daily engaged on investigations regarding members of the Irish Republican Army and the preparation of the case in question. On t7th January he remained at this Headquarters until after midnight, arranging for the protection of vulnerable points, armed patrols, etc., and soon after returning home in the early hours of the 18th he was notified that certain information had been received con cerning a man named"—
I do not think I need mention the name—
who was suspected of being concerned with the outrages. He immediately left for this man's address and, taking charge of the party of police officers who went to arrest him, Mr. Howard was the first to enter the house. He was later successful in obtaining evidence which led to the apprehension of one of the ringleaders, who was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, and throughout the period the prisoners were on remand he worked in close co-operation with the Manchester police officers engaged in the case. On l0th March, at the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Justice Stable spoke of the excellent work performed by all the police officers concerned, and I have since been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that Mr. Howard was the principal officer of this Force to whom he referred. In my opinion he thoroughly deserves the honour for which he is recommended.
That letter is signed by C. V. Godfrey, chief constable.
Mr. Howard is the man about whom this country has been talking. He has been front page sensational news. People


are saving that somebody must know something about this man that the public know nothing about. That is why I raise the matter here. I want information to be given rebuking what has been stated in this House. I want the information to be given so that hon. Members and the people of the country can form a judgment for themselves. This man has had the confidence of the watch committee for many years. In a democratic State, who knows the nature of the duties of a particular police force better than those on the spot? We at Salford, like many other authorities, promoted our town clerk from the position of deputy town clerk. He is a man who started work on our staff and has never served anywhere else. Our transport manager has been in the employment of the corporation since he was a boy and we have followed the same procedure with regard to the gas and electricity undertakings. We have never had any trouble from any Government Department. We have confidence in our officials. We think they are as good as those of any corporation in the country.
The deputy chief constable was bred and born in the town, was seeking only what has happened in other cities and towns. Only a short time ago under the present Home Secretary the Corporation of Wigan appointed one of their own men to high office though he had not served in another police force. The present chief constable of Cardiff, Sir Henry Wilson, started in that city's police force. Other men include the one at Oldham and the former chief constable of Manchester, Sir John Maxwell. This is a very important matter and I know that other hon Members wish to take part in the discussion. I have left my brief because if I had stuck to it I should have spoken for a great deal longer. However, I think I have said sufficient to indicate the indignation created among the ratepayers of Salford and the watch committee who were told deliberately and coldy on 8th May that they had appointed a man who was unfit to be their chief constable. In reply to a supplementary question, it was stated that he was said to be inefficient. I am satisfied that no one has any authority to disqualify a person because he has never served in another police force. There is no statutory right to do it, unless there is a background, and there is no background in this case. We may have had it

in one particular case where there was a background and another Home Secretary, but that excuse is not going to be used today as far as Salford is concerned.
We are entitled to know—and we should not be given a cold-blooded message—why the Home Secretary came to the conclusion that a man with an exemplary record like this man, who was approved by the watch committee and who had been complimented from time to time by the watch committee and at the assizes, and to whom the Home Office had given the Police Medal, was not suitable for this appointment. I am raising this question tonight in the interests of the people of Salford and of the man concerned. Some people may say that I am not doing him any good by so doing. It cannot do him any good to agree to his condemnation for the rest of his life. This man has been sentenced for life never to receive a chief constableship in this country because of the reply which was given by the Home Secretary on 8th May.

9.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the.Home Department (Mr. Ede): On 8th May, I was asked a Question by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Hardy), and, in this House, when I am asked a Question I endeavour to give a straight-forward and honest reply. I did not raise this issue in the House; the hon. Member for South Salford raised it. The hon. Member has not given a complete history of what led up to this matter. After he had asked this Question, supplementary questions were asked by another hon. Member for Salford and by an hon. Member from the Manchester area. I had to give a truthful answer to the questions put to me, and it would have been a poor compliment to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming), who also put a question, if I had given other than truthful answers to the questions put to me.
I made no slur on the watch committee. Let me read to the House what I actually said:
I make no reflection on the good faith of the Salford watch committee. They have discharged their responsibility. I have discharged mine. I regret that our views do not coincide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 783–4.]
If we were to accept the logic of the speech of the hon. Member for South


Salford, it would mean that the confirmation of the recommendation of a standing joint committee, or watch committee, with regard to the appointment of a chief constable by the Home Secretary, would be a mere matter of form. That is not the position. The position is that the final responsibility for approving the appointment of a chief constable rests with the Home Secretary. That is a duty which I have to discharge. It is always a difficult thing for a watch committee, or other appointing committee, to hold the balance fairly when they are interviewing a person who has been previously in their employment and other people whom they have called up on a short list. That is a difficulty which practically every committee has to consider at some time or other, and, when the watch committee of Salford informed me that they were proposing to interview five chief constables and their own deputy, I realised that particular difficulty with which they would be faced, and I took the precaution of having a letter written to them, in which I pointed out that, in the case of any of the five chief constables whom they chose to select, I should be quite willing to confirm the appointment. But I added this paragraph:
There remains the question of the remaining candidate on the short list, namely, the deputy chief constable. We recognise Mr. Howard's merits as a practical policeman, and it is primarily for the watch committee, as police authority, to consider whether, in addition, he has the qualities of personality and leadership needed in a chief constable. We hope, however, that the watch committee will bear in mind the desirability, on general grounds, of wide experience, particularly where, as in the present instance, there has been no change in the chief constableship for such a very long period. Other things being equal, therefore, we would suggest to the Committee that they should consider the question of selecting an officer who has wider experience than can be obtained by long service in a single force.
That was followed by a visit from the Inspector of Constabulary who went at my request to interview the mayor, the chairman and the deputy chairman of the watch committee to bring before their notice, once again, the views that had been formed on this particular case.
A chief constable is something more than a mere policeman. He has to be a man who can take his part in the conferences with surrounding chief constables with regard to police matters generally,

and who is able to count as at least one in any such conferences. On the reports that were in front of me, I had reached the conclusion at that stage that this particular man—as my hon. Friend has raised the matter again, I am quite sure that he would desire me to be as frank with him and the House as he has been about my many shortcomings—had not those qualities of leadership and ability in conference which would justify him in holding the position of chief constable. There are plenty of people in this country who are perfectly competent to fill the post of a deputy but who are not competent to fill the chief post when it becomes vacant. It is no reflection on a man to say that. I was only asked in this House whether I regarded him as an efficient chief constable, or whether he was inefficient for the job. I made no reflection at all on his past service.
The watch committee met. Their attention had been particularly directed to this phase of the importance of the appointment All I received was a bare notification that they had made the appointment. They did not allude to the letter that had been sent or to the interview that had taken place with the Inspector of Constabulary, even though they knew the point which was exercising my mind with regard to this appointment. Therefore, on the reports that I had in front of me, with regard to this man, I declined to confirm the appointment, and the Salford watch committee asked for an interview. I am told that it is most unusual for a Home Secretary to give an interview in circumstances like that

Mr. Hardy: Was it not unusual?

Mr. Ede: Oh no, there are plenty of examples. In any case, I am not here to follow precedents but to create them when I think they are good ones. I agreed to see the watch committee. They came up, and I am bound to say they made out a very good case for this man. I told them so, as my hon. Friend has admitted. I was faced with this dilemma. I had the reports of my inspector and my staff on whom I am entitled to place reliance. I had also the very good and, I believe, sincere testimony of the watch committee, who were, of course, hampered in making their selection by the fact that they knew this man and did not know the other five. What was the fair thing for


me to do, having responsibly to exercise my authority and to decide whether I would or would not confirm this appointment? I thought the proper thing to do was to see the man himself and to judge for myself. Does my hon. Friend object to that?

Mr. Hardy: I was not there. I do not know anything about it. I do not know the atmosphere.

Mr. Ede: Does my hon. Friend object to my calling up the man for interview by myself? It is true I may have conducted the interview badly, but that does not matter. Did I take a reasonable step in saying that I would like to see the man and judge him for myself? I had the responsibility of confirming or rejecting this appointment. I had two sets of evidence, each of which I held in great respect. I thought, and I hope the House will think, I did the right thing in saying that I would see the man for myself. I saw him and interviewed him for three-quarters of an hour. I did all I could to put the man at his ease. I will admit that it is, of course, difficult for a man, such as a deputy chief constable, who knows that he is coming up to be interviewed for a job for which he has great and legitimate ambitions, to be faced with the ordeal of interviewing a Secretary of State. He does not know me as well as my hon. Friend who has never shown any such fear of me in my presence. On the answers he gave to me on the two points which I have submitted are essential, namely, his ability to conduct a conference and to work with adjoining chief constables—and those, to my mind, are the essential things for a policeman who expects to become a chief constable—I came to the conclusion that he did not fill the bill.
I want to draw the attention of the House to this: When this man came up for interview by the Salford watch committee, five chief constables were called up as well. I would not have disclosed this to the House had my hon. Friend not done so, but on the first vote the voting was 12 for this man and three for another. Having disclosed it, my hon. Friend must not mind-if I disclose a little more. Within a few days of this appointment, the man who received only three votes as against 12 was appointed chief constable of Leeds. Every man is entitled to be proud of his own city, but I would say that the

appointment of chief constable of Leeds is a more important job than the chief constableship of Salford.

Mr. Hardy: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is within his knowledge that not so long ago there was a Caretaker Government Home Secretary, and then a few days afterwards there was a Socialist Home Secretary in office? Two men cannot occupy the same job at the same time.

Mr. Ede: But they are not people who are applicants, interviewed by committees. The Prime Minister sees one man at a time. So far as I know, no one has ever refused the job of Home Secretary when it has been offered to him. But I did not interrupt my hon. Friend—at least, only once, when I did not understand a point he was making—though he was making a most provocative speech; and I am trying to pour oil on the troubled waters. I venture to say that, had these six men been interviewed by a body which had not previously known this particular man for the 27 years, the man who was appointed chief constable of Leeds would have been appointed chief constable of Salford. Another man who came a cropper, within a few weeks was appointed chief constable of Stockport. There are people who think it is better to be chief constable of Salford than of Stockport. I understand that there are some people who think that, though Stockport carries rather less money, it is better to be in Stockport than in Salford. I saw this man. I would not myself have alluded to his experience in Italy but for the fact that my hon. Friend introduced it. But, really, of course, if things are put up, the hon. Member must expect that I shall answer them. This man was sent to Italy as a policeman, but the police authorities of A.M.G.O.T., after some little experience of him, decided he was unsuitable to be a policeman out there, and he was made head of a labour force instead. I regret having to say that—

Mr. Hardy: The deputation asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell them if there was anything else, apart from the interview, that the right hon. Gentleman had against him; and the right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing.

Mr. Ede: The interview was quite sufficient for me. I should not have mentioned this now, but for the fact that the hon.


Gentleman himself raised the matter. We are told that there is great indignation in Salford about this. I was threatened that this would be raised at the Margate Conference. Apparently, the Margate Conference had something better to do. But the Salford watch committee went to the Manchester and Salford trades council on the issue, and they submitted a resolution, asking the trades council to congratulate the Salford watch committee on the dignified and statesmanlike manner in which it conducted its representations—

Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of Order. My right hon. Friend referred to the Salford watch committee, saving they went to the trades council. Would he tell us how long the Salford watch committee has been a body affiliated to the trades council?

Mr. Hardy: It is not true.

Mr. Ede: All that I can say is that I am reading a report which appears in the "Daily Telegraph," the "Daily Dispatch" of Manchester, and the "Daily Graphic "—

Mr. Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman quotes those newspapers only when it suits him, of course.

Mr. Ede: But of course.

Mr. Hardy: It is not true, what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Ede: There was a resolution submitted.

Mr. Hardy: Not inspired by the watch committee.

Mr. Ede: There was a resolution submitted to the trades council in these terms: The resolution urged:
That the council congratulate the Salford watch committee on the dignified and statesmanlike manner in which it conducted its representations concerning the appointment; it records with regret that a Socialist of such high rank as the Home Secretary should be so irresponsible as to defy two accepted codes by an unwarranted attack from his privileged position in the House of Commons on an official who was unable to reply. Finally, this council views with major concern the vicious bludgeoning of the Salford people into submission to the dictates of a Minster by the withdrawal of the Police grant of £100,000 a year, an impossible burden for a city impoverished by the ravages of industry, bombing and the flood.

On that motion Mr. Blackwell of the E.T.U. said:
I believe the Watch Committee have been totally irresponsible, and to an extent I have never known before. I do not consider it in the interests of the people that the. Labour Government should depart from Standing Orders which have been laid down. I stand by Mr. Chuter Ede and ask that this motion be thrown into the wastepaper basket.
At the end of the discussion the motion was turned down, according to these three newspapers, by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Hardy: By people who did not live in Salford.

Mr. Ede: So much for the indignation of the people of Salford on this matter. I have also had letters from Salford congratulating me on the stand that I have taken, but I do not lay undue emphasis on that. I do want, however, to assure the House that, in reaching this decision, I took every precaution that I could to see that justice was done to this particular applicant. I know of no other step that I could have taken. But the responsibility for approving or disapproving this appointment rests on me, and while I have that responsibility resting on me I shall discharge it to the best of my judgment and ability, and I shall take every step I can to be fully informed on all the matters that appertain to such an appointment.
I regret very much that the Salford watch committee and my hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to compel statements to be made in this House on this matter. I believe that the best interests of all parties would have been served had they taken the hint—which is generally taken—when the letter, which I read, is sent to a watch committee or a standing joint committee, and had recognised that there would be at least difficulties, probably insuperable difficulties, in securing the appointment of this man. Now, I regret that in this matter it was not possible for me to see eye to eye with the watch committee. I do not think it can be said that I failed in my endeavours to reach an understanding with them. I sent a letter; I sent the inspector; when they sent me the appointment I arranged for an interview; after the interview I interviewed the candidate; and after that I again interviewed the Committee.
I think I ought to say this with regard to that last interview. At the first interview I was asked to appoint this man because he had carried the confidence of the previous chief constable. Now let us be quite certain of this: Chief constables cannot leave the jobs in their wills; there has to be a proper competition. I knew of an incident, about which apparently the members of the watch committee who came to see me did not know. There was a great deal of mystery as soon as I mentioned it. On the next occasion when they came, they said, "We will bring the man who knows all about that incident." I was then asked to appoint this man because he was at loggerheads with the previous chief constable.

Mr. Hardy: No.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend says "No," but he will recollect that the ex-mayor, who was produced for the occasion, said: "If I had had my way at the time it would not have been Howard who would have been in difficulties: It would have been the chief constable."

Mr. Hardy: Did he say it to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Ede: He said it in front of the whole deputation. Admittedly, these appointments are always a matter of great delicacy, and need very careful handling. I hope I have convinced the House that as far as my handling of this matter was concerned, until it was raised in this House, I took every possible step to deal reasonably with the Watch Committee of Salford. Once questions are asked and debates are raised in this House, it is essential that this House should be spoken to truthfully and fully by the Minister who is attacked in the course of the proceedings. I regret that I should be one of those animals who when attacked defends himself. I have no apology to offer, either to the Salford watch committee or to this House, for the way this matter has been handled. I assure the House that it is a matter of great regret to me that these Questions should have been asked and this Debate should have taken place, but if my action as a Minister is attacked, it is due to me and to the House, and more particularly to the House, that I should state, fully and frankly, the whole of the circumstances which have led me to take a certain decision.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Home Secretary tell the House the strength of the other forces and the strength of the Salford police force, because I think he will find that in one case the strength was 31 in another case 32, and in another case it was 41? The 151 in Stockport seem to be grieving because we did not make the appointment instead of Leeds.

Mr. Ede: I am quite prepared to accept those figures. When I was in the Army I was told opportunity was a fine thing. These men called up were evidently regarded by the Salford Committee as being, at least worthy of interviewing. They had their opportunity, and I regret that they had it under circumstances which prevented real justice being done.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (ADMISSIONS)

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I wish to raise the question of admission to the Scottish universities and to look at some of the problems which arise therefrom. This matter was referred to in a Question in November, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that for the session 1945-46 there were 6,440 applicants for admission to the four Scottish universities, and of that number 2,703 had not been admitted, even though they were in possession of a certificate of fitness. In other words, almost 50 per cent. of those boys and girls seeking a university education, and testified as being equipped by reason of their school training to benefit from a university education, were denied it. This was an actual demand that was not being met. There is another demand, which I call a potential demand. The raising of the school-leaving age, and the developments which are expected to ensue in secondary education, will create the need for something like 15,000 new science teachers in our secondary schools. This is another demand which the universities as a whole must meet. Looking at the scientific aspect of the problem, the Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower, over which Sir Alan Barlow presided, pointed out that by 1955 we would need a capital accumulation of something like 90,000 graduate scientists. They also pointed out that as a result of our present methods we might expect to produce about


64,000, leaving 26,000 extra graduates to be provided for from universities in the United Kingdom.
The question on which I want to focus attention is, what is to be Scotland's contribution towards that deficiency? Student numbers in Great Britain have risen by 32 per cent. since the war, but in Scotland they have risen by only 28½ per cent. While we readily admit that the Scottish student population is much greater per thousand than that of England, nevertheless that percentage fall shows a regression on the part of Scottish universities. I believe that Scotland possesses about one-fifth of the number of degree awarding institutions in the United Kingdom, so our contribution in Scot-land towards the deficiency of 26,000 ought to be in the region of 5,000 to 6,000. Last year, the number who graduated in pure and applied science from all the Scottish universities was 460. Even allowing for the fact that that number covers the barren period of the war, and assuming that we could increase that output by one-third, or even a half, when we allow for the wastage of students who graduate but do not pursue their studies, or marry, or who come from foreign universities, I do not think we can provide for a figure much in excess of 500 or 600 per year as our contribution. That would give us less, in the next eight years to meet what ought to be our total commitments according to the Barlow Report. When we add to that the numbers in medicine and arts, it seems fairly clear that the obligations which are being placed upon us in arts, science and medicine in the future will not be met by the present university equipment.
Have we the material on which to draw —the reservoir of potential students for the universities in the future? According to the Barlow report, something like two per cent. of the whole population of the country reach university standard. On the other hand, something like five per cent. show on test an intelligence equal to the upper half of the university students. Therefore, only one in five of all the boys and girls with an intelligence equal to the upper half of the university students reach the universities. Moreover, 80 per cent. of that five per cent. pass through the public elementary schools and no per cent. through the in-

dependent schools. Of the two per cent. who reach the universities, 60 per cent. are from independent schools and only 40 per cent, from the public elementary schools. That would seem to indicate that the income level of the parents is still a very serious drawback to a university education. While I pay tribute for the increased grant which has been given for recurrent expenditure in our universities today, and also for the great increase in grant for capital expenditure, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best to see that these boys and girls in our midst who merit a university education will not be prevented by their pecuniary circumstances from getting it. Commenting on the position, the Barlow Report says:
We cannot, however, believe that in Scotland we have yet approached the limit of what is either possible or desirable in the national interest.
If we have not approached the limit, what are we to do about it? That raises the type of institution. Are we to meet it by an extension of the universities? That problem, as we see from the Press, is affecting Edinburgh and Glasgow. When we begin to talk about extending universities, we have to face the problem of the size of the university? Glasgow has 5,500 students, Edinburgh has over 5,000. Is that number to be still further increased? Are we aiming at some of the Continental figures? I understand that Poznan has 12,000 students, and Rome 42,000. Are we to go on expanding our universities? Or are we to try to say that a university shall have a particular size and that this is what the size of a university ought to be? I think that Glasgow, and perhaps Edinburgh, are as large as is desirable at the present moment. I therefore do not look kindly on the question of extension.
The problem of the functional college arises. I have no objection to the university college as such—provided it grows to full stature. In seeking to face this problem my thoughts turn towards that organisation which comprehends not merely the production of good scientists and good technicians, but of good citizens, who in many ways are of equal, if not of greater importance, than the other two. I suggest that the solution of the problem lies along the lines of another university. That immediately raises the problem of location. [Interruption.] My hon.


Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) says that that is easy. I can assure him that if he had been in my shoes he would find that it is not so easy. Dundee thinks that the university ought to be there, and Oban too has its eyes upon the fifth university. The Queen of the South thinks she, too, ought to be favoured. My thoughts turn towards that scene in which King Duncan, looking round Macbeth's home, says:
This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself Unto our gentle senses.
Banquo, looking at him, replies:
…I have observed
The air is delicate.
I think, therefore, of Inverness.
Each region except one into which Scotland is to be divided—she will be divided into five—will have a university. The region without a university will be that of Inverness. Apart from the delicacy of its atmosphere, Inverness will fit in well with the regionalisation plan. In addition, it is the gateway to a hinterland of 300,000 people. It overlooks the silvery Ness, and it the gateway to a land of surpassing beauty and rich in traditions which are dear to the heart of every Scotsman. There we might create the nucleus of what could grow to be a completely residential university; something new in Scotland. After the last war we placed in our present capital our war memorial; why not, in the ancient capital of the Highlands put this second memorial, built by the voluntary effort of Scotsmen at home and abroad, giving permanence to all that is best in modern architecture; a thank offering for peace; a tribute to the unflinching zeal with which countless hosts of Scottish youth, fortified only by their poke of meal, endured in the quest of knowledge and passed to us the Torch, unflickering and undimmed; a gift to the incomparable splendour of generations yet unborn.

9.56 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I listened very carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), and as he developed his theme I wondered more and more why he had raised this subject at all, because what he suggests is that Scotland should have another university. These things are not

normally pushed on to a country by the State, but they begin in a voluntary fashion and go through a spontaneous and voluntary effort by the local inhabitants themselves, after which the State eventually steps in and does help by the provision of grants of one kind and another. I began to doubt whether my hon. Friend was aware of this until in his wonderful peroration, in which he advocated that this university should be at Inverness—and I do not wish to take the part of Inverness or of any other place in Scotland—he argued that it should be built by the voluntary effort of Scotsmen all over the world. That being so, this is not the place for him to deliver that speech. The place to deliver it is in the various towns of Scotland in order to enthuse the people for this project, and eventually—and none could do it better than my hon. Friend—to speak of it to Scotsmen overseas wherever they congregate and help to make the British Empire what we know it is. I have no doubt that from them the scheme would receive generous support.
I compliment my hon. Friend on his very fine speech, but I would remind him that Scotland is not alone in having its universities crowded at the present time. Other universities—and I am glad to think that it is so—are absolutely packed out, which is partly due to the fact that 90 per cent. of the places have to be reserved for ex-Service men and ex-Service women. That means unfortunately that for a year or two many a bright lad and many a bright girl, who show great promise and who have won great academic distinctions, cannot for the moment find a place in any of our universities. It has to be remembered that that is temporary. Hon. Members of all parties have promised that the men and women who have been abroad in the Forces in the last six or seven momentous years should be given an opportunity to go through the university. We are trying to crowd into. one or two years what would normally be extended over a much longer period. Scotland. of course, believes in education. There are many attractive things about Scotsmen and Scotswomen, and the value of education for education's sake is one of the most outstanding. Far more boys and girls in Scotland are sent by their parents sometimes at great sacrifice to the universities than—

It being Ten o'Clock, the. Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have the figures here. There are at present in full-time attendance at Scottish Universities 12,868 students, as compared with 10,034 in the last year before the war. My hon. Friend referred to the Barlow Committee's Report. It is true that that committee recommended that there should be an expansion over the next 10 years to no fewer than double the prewar percentage. The Government recognise this need to expand and are fully cognisant of what the Barlow Committee's Report said, and they have generally accepted the recommendations made in it. We have to realise, however, that physically circumstances are against us at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done what he could to help students to the universities, and the grant has gone up from £9,450,000 in 1946–47 to £11,875,000 in the current year. I think the House will agree that, in the circumstances, that was a very generous increase which my right hon. Friend gave with a song in his heart. My right hon. Friend believes in university education and desires to help the poor student as much as he can.
My hon. Friend mentioned that Scotland lagged behind England by about 32 per cent. Actually, I am informed that Scotland proposes to increase by 32 per cent. the places available for students. She proposes to raise them from 9,500 to 12,550, and the expectation is that she will be able, by one means or another, to crowd in even another 2,000 over and above the figure I have given. I think that is pretty good. It shows that, in spite of all the difficulties which Scotland is experiencing in common with England and Wales, she is doing her utmost in these rather difficult years to see that as many as possible of those who want to go to universities shall be enabled to do so. There are, however, limiting factors which would prevent the Government from initiating the building of a university in Inverness. We cannot even yet consider expanding university building as we would Ike. Housing is one priority, and there

are others which could be mentioned, and universities and schools are among them; but, frankly, we could not undertake to find building labour or material, nor would there be the teaching staff al the present moment to increase as we would like.

Mr. Rankin: It is not a problem of building, as my right hon. Friend is well aware. It might be a problem of acquisition of buildings that are awaiting reconversion to a better purpose.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That may be. I confess I do not know sufficient about this to indicate where such buildings could be found. It may be that my hon. Friend knows of such buildings which could be easily converted, and if so, it would be for him to let those responsible at the Ministry of Education, or my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, know where those buildings are to be found, so that, if possible, extra places can be found for the students who undoubtedly want to go there. I would like to give one or two figures, particularly as during the war years no figures have been published as to how the grant has. been made up. Normally, His Majesty's Stationery Office issue these figures as part of a report year by year, but the war came and the issue was suspended. It is true that certain roneod copies have been circulated to various universities, but the figures have not been given publicly. My hon. Friends who represent Scottish divisions may be interested to have them. Recurrent grants for all purposes given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the universities are as follows: Aberdeen University, £158,000; Edinburgh University, £255,200; Glasgow University, £303,550; Glasgow Royal Technical College, £37,000; St. Andrews University, which includes Dundee, £162,050, making a total of £915,800.
In addition, capital grants for building and equipment have been allocated as follow: Aberdeen University, £16,000; Edinburgh University, £36,000; Glasgow University, £8,500; Glasgow Royal Technical College, £9,600; St. Andrews University—again including Dundee—£102,000, a grand total for capital grants of £172,100. There are also grants of £15,000 to Edinburgh and £80,000 to Glasgow yet to be approved—I hope that the approval will come through quite shortly—to make a


complete total of about £267,000. In addition grants to Scottish teaching hospitals attached to the universities amount to £109,550 out of a total of £500,000 allocated to this purpose. There are other smaller grants with which I will not trouble the House now.
I think my hon. Friend will agree with me when I claim that these figures show that Scotland is receiving her share of the grants which are now allocated by the Chancellor for this purpose. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that if, when conditions improve—when building materials are more plentiful and teachers have been trained—he comes again and asks for help and has, in the meantime, awakened enormous interest in his project among his fellow countrymen, as I am sure he will, the answer of whoever stands at this Box then will be very different.

Mr. Willis: Do the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend refer to the current year or the past year? In other words, are they to be read in conjunction with the expenditure of £9,000,000 or that of £11,000,000?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: They refer to the academic year 1946–47 and are actually allocated on the work of the last year.

10.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The figures which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given us are very interesting. As he rightly said, we have not been able to follow these, matters closely during the war years. The figures would be even more interesting if we had further comparison with previous years. They are also more interesting if we can, as has just been suggested, work them out on the basis of the expansion of expenditure from £9 million to £11million, which is a substantial increase. As a matter of fact, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who works only through the University Grants Commission in these matters, will find his machine heavily laden in attempting to handle these large sums in connection with the University programme. The relatively small staff of the University Grants Commission is already seriously taxed, and an expansion of this order in itself may begin to lead to restrictions and cramping. I think the Chancellor should look into this matter with the University Grants Commission. I know from discussions I have had with

some of them that they are a little uneasy about the task in front of them in vetting and revising five year programmes for all the main universities in receipt of those grants, and a certain balance will need to be kept in these matters.
For instance, the Financial Secretary has just said that it is the desire of the Government and of the university authorities that all who wish, and are able, to profit by a university education should be able to enjoy it. There is one class of students to whom he should give further attention, and that is the ex-Service students, who are now much older men than the usual run of university students and who are in receipt of allowances which are small compared with the sums necessary to keep a married man. It should be remembered that these are whole-time students who, by hypothesis, are unable to engage in anything more than the merest auxiliary programmes for increasing their incomes.
In passing, I may say that I am glad that the somewhat Scrooge-like attitude of demanding that any contribution which a student was able to obtain to reinforce his Government allowance should be recompensed by immediately reducing his Government allowance proportionately, has been relaxed. It was no incitement to self-help, and I am glad to know that it has been modified, partly as a result of correspondence from several hon. Members of the House, including myself. The Treasury is always apt to take a somewhat stingy view about income supplementary to a grant or a whole-time salary. I well remember that during the war the flying men who were brought up from the Battle of Britain to broadcast about the progress of that epic and enormous struggle, and who received some modest fee of £5, £10, or £15 from the B.B.C.—which was no more than enough to give them a reasonable night in town once they got away from the battle—found it promptly pounced upon by the Treasury. The view of the Treasury was that they paid the men a whole-time salary to fight all the time and if they like to engage in other activities it was just too bad, the Treasury would take the money. It was not the best way of encouraging those young men, and I am sure it is not the best way of encouraging students Although the actual confiscation of the sums which the student earns


for himself has, I think, been done away with, the allowances made to those students are still inadequate in view of the increased cost of living. A man of 28, 29 or 30 with a wife is not able to live en the sums which are now given, and has in fact to draw upon his parents or on his gratuity.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I am taking correctly the point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making, I should like to tell him that those grants are now much more generous than they have ever been. For the first time, as I understand—and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find I am right—those making the grants do not take the parents' circumstances into account at all, nor the fact that a parent might make a grant to the son. If the son is married and has children, and gets a University grant, he gets a grant sufficient to keep him and his wife and family without help from anyone else.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not suggesting that that is not the theory of the grant. What I am suggesting is that the grants are not, in fact, in present circumstances, sufficient to carry out the intention which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced. I wish he would look into it from that point of view. I admit the grants are more generous than before, as is inevitable. The sever years' war has meant that the students coming up to the Universities are even older than they were at the end of the last war, and the cost of living has increased. Although, in theory, the money which the student may derive from his parents is not taken into account, I know from budgets which have been submitted to me that in many cases the student is not able to carry through his university course without either drawing on his parents or, which they resent even more than that, having to draw upon his gratuity which he regarded as a nest egg to be laid by and kept in order to establish himself in civil life when the period of university training is over. I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would look again into the question, because nowadays even "digs", to use a homely student phrase, are expensive enough, and there is very little left of the sum which is given by the Treasury even when the cost of lodgings and breakfast is taken into account. The extra costs of living over and above, are not

fully met by the allowance as it stands at present.
The other point the right hon. Gentleman made was of general and of very great importance. He said we could not consider for a moment the building of a new university. We must take his opinion as the definite decision of the Government for the time being. I must say that when he goes on to say that he will find it difficult even to expand the university buildings sufficiently, I find myself still more disquieted because the classes are crowded enough at the present. The figures he gave as to the proposed expansion of the Scottish University impose a great degree of overcrowding, and overcrowding to a point which begins to diminish the actual value of the university education itself. I remember after the last war when the English literature class in Glasgow University was held in the Bute Hall holding from 1,500 to 2,000 people. The study of English literature in a class 1,500 strong is not the best way to get the most accurate appreciation of the nicer points of scholarship. I think it is necessary to consider the priorities on a level somewhat different from the level which he has been presenting to the House this evening. This is seed corn we are talking about and it must have space to grow. It is true that from some students' discoveries, we may get a line of advance which will revolutionise the whole future of our work in Scotland, and indeed throughout the Empire, just as a student of no great fame at the time, and no great technical achievement, hit upon the work in television which opened up complete new avenues of research, and bade fair to put Great Britain right ahead of the whole of the science of television if we had not been held up by the war delays.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will strain every nerve to see that at least an adequate building programme, laboratory programme, research programme, and scholarship programme, in the sense of the humanities, the antiquities and pure thought of one kind or another, should be made available to our people in the years to come. After all, we are a poor country, and if we have devoted ourselves, as the Financial Secretary was kind enough to say, very extensively to education, it is really because it is a case of, "root hog, or die." We have had to live by our brains, and to develop our thinking machines because the natural resources


in front of us were all too scanty. Indeed what once applied to Scotland applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
The flying start with which the United Kingdom got away has been heavily reduced in recent years. It is to the universities that the United Kingdom will need to look, and perhaps primarily to the concentrated thought and opportunities for original work which the universities present, in order to get our country out of the trough of depression in which she is labouring at the present time.
The sums which the Financial Secretary mentioned are interesting. They take a little adding up because, while he mentioned amongst the capital grants £16,000 for Aberdeen,£36,000 for Edinburgh and only £8,500 for Glasgow, it sounded a little disproportionate. It is true that subsequently he made an addition to that which added £15,000 to the Edinburgh figure and £80,000, as I understood it, to the Glasgow figure, but even these short quotations will show how necessary it is to go a little more closely into the figures, before we can fully appreciate what the Financial Secretary has been saying. The annual grants of £158,000 for Aberdeen,£255,000 for Edinburgh, £303,000 for Glasgow, with £37,000 for what we affectionately call the "Tech," and £162,000 for St. Andrews were all interesting, though the St. Andrews' figure is considerably above that of Aberdeen. St. Andrews includes Dundee, but it seems to show a certain discrepancy and I think the University of the North will look very closely at these figures tomorrow.
With regard to the grants to the teaching hospitals, I should like to see the figure broken down a little because it is interesting to note in passing that the Financial Secretary has had no difficulty in defining a teaching hospital—a description which has hitherto baffled the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who I see has joined our Debate. I would call his attention to the fact that the Financial Secretary has just defined the teaching hospitals in the most thoroughgoing of all ways, namely, institutions to which he finds it possible to make Treasury grants. I would like the Joint Under-Secretary to look at that when he is considering, as we have asked him to consider from time to time, whether, in fact, teaching hospitals in Scotland might

not share the same privileged position which they have in England.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Of course the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that we have debated this matter already, and that the Committee have come to a decision. I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has said about the teaching hospitals, but that does not alter my opinion, and the Scottish make-up in this matter is, as usual, ahead of the English way.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will leave the Front Bench to compose their own difficulties—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is unity here.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In general, I think the Financial Secretary has touched on a point of considerable importance, that these hospitals are closely linked with the universities and sufficiently closely linked to receive substantial grants from the Treasury direct. I trust that in the set-up which is being considered, that link will not be broken in any way, and that it will be possible still for these hospitals to remain in some sort of definition which will allow them to receive those large direct grants amounting to £109,000, of which the Financial Secretary has just spoken.

Mr. Buchanan: It is not our intention to link up. It is our intention to add one or two other hospitals, but not to link up the work further.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to find myself at odds with the Joint Under-Secretary and will only say that you can spread the butter so thinly, that it becomes indistinguishable from the surface of the bread, and for this purpose it is necessary to make sure that the high educational institutions are obtaining a grant which is adequate to bring them to, and keep them at the very forefront of medical and teaching knowledge. We are indebted to the hon. Member for raising this matter. I know that he has had it under consideration for many weeks. I compliment him on having taken his Parliamentary chance when he could take it, to enable us to have a rather longer discussion than is possible within the usual half-hour on the Adjournment Motion. I again ask the Financial Secretary to look at the allowances, and see if they are adequate;


to look at the machinery of the grants and see whether it is being overstrained by the distribution of these large sums, and to look very closely at this building programme to see if it is not possible to squeeze out a little extra accommodation. The figures he gave were impressive, but it might be that the squeeze would diminish the value of the education which was received. Either by the institution of a new university altogether as suggested by the hon. Member for Tradeston, or by extensions of the older universities, the slips which we are laying down for the new generation, should be made adequate for the ship we hope to launch.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. McAllister: Scotland tomorrow will be deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) for raising this topic this evening. It is useful that the House should have an opportunity of showing its vigilant care and regard for our ancient universities. The anxiety shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston has been shared generally by people in Scotland, and we regard it as rather frightful that young boys and girls who have gone through secondary schools and qualified academically for places in the universities should then be denied those places. We do not think that is a light thing to be passed over without complaint. I have carried on a rather lengthy correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject. The statement made this evening will be received with

the greatest possible pleasure by hundreds of families in Scotland tomorrow when they find that an additional 30 per cent. of students is to be received and if possible another 2,000 will be squeezed in. I am sure that my hon. Friend and all who have shared his anxiety will feel that we have at last made a substantial contribution towards solving what was a very difficult problem. It is a very difficult matter to raise the question of Scottish Universities in Parliament. As the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) said, we have to look forward to a building programme and the extensions of the universities. It may take the form of university extension such as that adopted in the South-West, in Exeter and Bristol. From wherever the initiative comes, whether from the universities or from Members of Parliament like my hon. Friend, it will be an initiative which we feel after the speech of the Financial Secretary will be greatly encouraged.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I associate myself enthusiastically with the references to the good sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Trades-ton (Mr. Rankin) and with his request to the Government seriously to consider whether it is practical to undertake an extension of existing buildings, or the desirability of having a new university.

It being half past Ten o'clock, Mr.DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.